Cijeyu Ojong V. Christopher Sunny Eta & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant contested election into the National Assembly to represent Ikom/Boki Federal Constituency in Cross-River State under the platform of the Action Congress of Nigeria on 9th April, 2011 but lost to 1st Respondent of the Peoples Democratic Party. The Appellant polled 11,780 votes against 40,515 votes polled by the 1st Respondent who was duly declared elected by the 2nd Respondent and 3rd Respondents.

Other contestants and their votes were Stanislaus Afu of the All Nigeria Peoples Party – 3,555 votes; Sophia Ajrja Ewa of the ALP – 11,217 votes. Being aggrieved by the declaration the appellant presented a petition before the National and Legislative House of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal holden in Calabar, Cross-River State on 29-04-2011 on the following grounds:

“(i) The election in Ikom/Boki Federal Constituency was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and/or non-compliance with the provisions of Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

(ii) 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes.”

Upon service of the petition the 1st Respondent filed Reply on 20-06-2011. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents did so on 16-06-2011. On 03-08-2011 the 1st Respondent came by way of preliminary objection seeking that the petition be dismissed on several grounds. Arguments were taken. The Tribunal dismissed some grounds but granted relief to the Respondents as follows:

“The deposition of the petitioner’s witness whose name is represented by the letter”CO” clearly offends Section 90(b) of the Evidence Act which requires every affidavit, which a deposition is, to contain the full names of the deponent among other requirements.

This conclusion enjoys the blessing of the Supreme Court in BUHARI VS INEC.

The deposition of the Petitioner, however, bears his full names and describes his trade or profession as politician. The 7th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defines politics as:

” …the activity or profession of engaging in political affairs. ”

In this light we define a politician as one whose profession is politics. Accordingly the deposition of the Petitioner is in consonance with Section 90(b) of the Evidence Act.

Paragraphs 5-66 of the Petitioner’s deposition are information which the deponent avers he got from his agents. The paragraphs form the core of the deposition. The deponent has not stated the names of his informants and the circumstances forming the basses of his believe in the information given to him.

Paragraphs 5-66 of the deposition are therefore defective for failing to provide the information relating to the names of the informants and the bases of believing the information they offered as required by Sections 86,88 and 89 of the Evidence Act. (See BUHARI VS INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (PART 1120) 240.

We have to deal with these issues of law raised at this or any stage of the proceedings despite any number of steps taken by the applicant and inspite of the fact, that the objections are not embedded in the applicant’s pleadings. The authorities are legion that there is no limitation to the time and venue for raising issues relating to law.