Chief Sergeant Chidi Awuse V. Dr. Peter Odili & Ors (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

On the 19th day of April, 2003, the Independent National Electoral Commission (hereinafter referred to as “INEC”) conducted elections throughout the country, for the election into the offices of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Governors of the thirty six States. In Rivers State of Nigeria, there were several candidates, who contested for the office of the Governor, among whom were chief sergeant Chidi Awuse, the appellant herein, who was sponsored by the All Nigeria Peoples Party and Dr. Peter Odili, the first respondent herein, who contested on the platform of Peoples Democratic Party. At the conclusion of the election, Dr. Peter Odili was on the 20th day of April, 2003, returned as the winner.

The appellant was not satisfied with the result and as such, he filed an election petition No. NAGLHEP/RV/1/2003 in the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Petition Tribunal, Rivers State, challenging the result of the election. In the petition, Dr. Peter Odili was made the first respondent. INEC was the 2nd respondent. The Rivers State Resident Electoral Commissioner was the 3rd respondent, while the returning officer, Rivers State was the 4th respondent. Various electoral officials that took part in the conduct of the election were joined as 5th to 327th respondents.

Part of the petition reads:
“1. The petition of Chief Sergeant Chidi Awuse of No. 3D Wouodi Close, Off Olu-Obasanjo Road, G.R.A., Phase 3, Port Harcourt and of Emohua Local Government Area of Rivers State.
2. Your petitioner, Chief Sergeant Chidi Awuse, was a candidate, under the platform of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) for the governorship election of Rivers State.
3. Your petitioner, states that the election was held on April 19th, 2003, when the petitioner and Dr. Peter Odili, the 1st respondent, were candidates; and on April 20th, 2003, the 4th respondent declared that the 1st respondent received 2,098,692 votes and the 1st respondent was declared to be duly elected.
4. Your petitioner states that the 1st respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful and/or valid votes cast at the election.
5. Your petitioner avers that the votes cast at the said election were not correctly added up or counted at the ward, Local Government & State collation centres in that the figures added up at the collation centres, were either not those actually recorded at the polling stations (where no elections took place) or they were not based upon correct figures of actual votes at the polling stations (where elections took place)”.

The petition in paragraph 112 concluded with the following prayer:
“WHEREOF your petitioner prays that it may be determined that the said Dr. Peter Odili, the 1st respondent was not duly elected or returned and that his election was void or that the election is void on the grounds that it was not conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of Part 11 of the Electoral Act, 2002, or as the case may be.”

The 1st respondent then filed a notice of intention to rely upon a preliminary objection as follows:
“TAKE NOTICE that the 1st respondent herein named intends at the hearing of the petition to rely upon the following preliminary objection, notice whereof is hereby given to you, viz

The petition herein, is fundamentally defective for failing to comply with Electoral Act, 2002 and should therefore be struck out.

And take notice that the grounds of the said objection are as follows:
1. The said petition is not in accordance with the provisions of Part VII of the Electoral Act, 2002, and the provisions of the 1st Schedule of the Act.
2. The petition does not state the names of all the candidates at the election and the votes of each candidate and the person returned as the winner of the election as required by paragraph 4(1)(c) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2002.
3. The candidates at the said election were more than the candidates mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said petition.”

In support of the preliminary objection, the 1st respondent filed an affidavit of 8 paragraphs. The appellant filed a 14 paragraphs counter-affidavit. After hearing the submissions of all the counsel in the matter, the tribunal in a reserved ruling, struck out the petition.

In its ruling, after quoting the provisions of paragraph 4 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2002, the tribunal stated:
“The attitude of the courts to this provision of the Electoral Act is that it is mandatory, substantial and never procedural. In fact, due compliance with it is a condition precedent and sine qua non to the filing of a competent and valid election petition. Failure to comply with it is not a mere irregularity rather it is fatal as such that it cannot be said that there is a valid election petition before the tribunal.”

The tribunal then goes on to say:
“The petitioner/respondent contended that he had stated names of candidates and the votes scored in the election petition. However, considering the affidavit evidence before the tribunal the names of the candidates and the votes scored by them as indicated in the election petition have not satisfied the provisions of paragraph 4(1)( c) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2002.

Consequently, the provisions of paragraph 4(6) thereof will have to be called in aid, since it makes any petition that does not comply with the said paragraph 4(1)(c) or any provision of the sub-paragraph defective.

Consequently, the only option open to the tribunal in the circumstance is to strike out the petition as it has no jurisdiction to entertain it…

It is for this reason that this tribunal finds that the present election petition is defective and must be struck out and it is hereby accordingly struck out. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Aggrieved with this decision the petitioner (hereinafter called the “appellant”) appealed to this court.