Dr. Chigbo Sam Eligwe V. Okpokiri Nwanaka Okpokiri & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SVLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C.

On 3rd January, 2011 the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the 2nd Respondent in this appeal, held its primary election to nominate its candidate for the Ahoada west constituency seat in the Rivers State House of Assembly. The primary election was held at the Ahoada West Local Government Council Secretariat at Akinima. One Mr. Sunny Daniel was the Returning officer. He was assisted by one Barrister Kingsley Ajuzieogu.

Appellant and 1st Respondent contested the primary election along with seven other contestants. The result of the primary election, as declared by the Returning Officer, showed that the 1st Respondent scored a total of 118 votes against the appellant’s 109 votes and consequently, he, 1st Respondent, was declared winner by the Returning Officer.

Following his victory at the primary election, 1st Respondent was presented the flag of his party, PDP, by the Governor of Rivers State. The Party, PDP (2nd Respondent) submitted his name to the Nation’s Electoral Umpire, the 3rd Respondent, as nominated candidate of the 2nd Respondent to contest the election for the Ahoada West seat in the Rivers State House of Assembly.

Not satisfied with the result of the primary election, the appellant herein wrote two petitions the next day, 4th January, 2011. The first of the two petitions was addressed to the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent’s “Panel of Appeal”. He complained of “Irregularities and over voting” in the 3rd January primary election.

The second petition, also addressed to the 2nd Respondent’s “Panel of Appeal” protested that the 1st Respondent was not qualified to contest the primary election. This complaint was found on the grounds:

(1) That the 1st Respondent was not a registered and card carrying member of the 2no Respondent at the time of the primary election, and

(2) That the 1st Respondent had not attained the age of 35 years at the time of the primary election, among others.

It is interesting to note that on the said 4th January, 2011 the Returning Officer, Mr. Sunny Daniel, contrary to his declaration the previous day that the 1st Respondent won the primary election conducted on 3rd January, 2011 wrote to the 2nd Respondent’s “Panel of Appeal” that whereas 264 delegates were accredited to vote, 280 votes were recorded, leading to the conclusion that 16 unaccredited delegates voted at the primary election. The records do not show for whom the unaccredited delegates cast their votes, having in mind that a total of nine aspirants contested the primary election.

In view of the two complaints he made and the report of the Returning Officer, the appellant urged the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent’s “Appeal Panel” to “use your good office to critically look into the matter and let justice be done.”

Apparently not satisfied with the steps, if any, being taken by the “Appeal Panel” of the 2nd Respondent, the appellant approached the Federal High Court on 14th February, 2011 by way of Originating Motion in a bid to overturn the declaration of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the primary election and for himself to be declared winner of the said election.

The learned trial Judge delivered judgment in the case on 21st April, 2011 granting the reliefs sought by the appellant in the originating motion. His Lordship ordered the 2nd Respondent to forward the name of the appellant to the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the election slated for 26th April, 2011 and the 3rd Respondent was also ordered to accept the appellant as the 2nd Respondent’s candidate.

In apparent show of respect for the Court and rule of law, the 2nd Respondent submitted the name of the appellant to the Electoral Umpire by a letter received by the 3rd Respondent on 25/04/2011, the eve of the election slated for 26/4/2011

On 21/4/2011 after the Federal High Court delivered its judgment, the 1st Respondent filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt. He also filed a motion for a stay of the execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal. The notice of appeal and the motion for a stay of execution were served on the 3rd Respondent but in spite of the service of the processes on it, the 3rd Respondent held the election as scheduled on 26/4/2011 with the appellant as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent.