Ehigie Edobor Uzamere V. Pharm. Matthew Aisagbonridon Urhoghide & Ors (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J. C. A.

These appeals arose from the Judgment of the Governorship and National Assembly Elections, Petitions Tribunal of Edo State, (Lower Tribunal, Lower Court) delivered on the 26/6/08.

Elections were held on the 21st day of April, 2007 for the office of the Senator to represent Edo South Senatorial District of the National Assembly. The Appellant Ehigie Edobor Uzamere (in appeal No. CAIB/EPT/260/2008) contested that election on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) while the 1st Respondent Matthew Aisagbonridon Urhoghide was the candidate of the Action Congress (A.C.) 2nd Respondent in this Appeal.

At the conclusion of that election where a total of seven candidates contested, the Appellant was returned as elected with 328,607 votes, while the 1st Respondent Polled 34,013 votes. The Petition was fought on the Amended Petition of 20 paragraphs (see pages 249-262 of the record. The Petition generally alleged sundry crimes and non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2006. At the end of the trial of the Petition the lower tribunal after hearing the Petition nullified the election in Edo South Senatorial District held on the 21st of April 2007, and directed INEC to conduct a fresh election for the Senatorial District within 90 days from the 26/6/08 the date the Judgment was delivered.

Dissatisfied with the said Judgment the Appellant in 260/08 Ehigie Uzamere, appealed to this Court on 13 Grounds from which 7 issues were distilled. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) appealed in 261/08. Dissatisfied with some parts of the Judgment, Matthew Aisagbonriodion Urhoghide Cross Appealed in appeal No. 262/08, while INEC and its officials appealed in 263/08.

Consequent upon the orders of this Court, the four appeals were consolidated as one appeal. The Appellants were granted leave to amend the notice of appeal on the 3/03/09. Issues were joined by parties and briefs were filed in respect of the appeal and cross appeal.

For the first time, the Appellant raised the question of the jurisdiction of the lower Tribunal to hear the Petition on the basis that the Petition was filed out of time and therefore statute barred.

E.C. Ukala SAN learned Counsel for the Appellant distilled seven issues for determination thus:

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in relying on the evidence of alleged non-compliance with the electoral Act and irregularities discovered from documents in evidence to invalidate the election of the Appellant when

i. It had found that there were reasonable doubts as to the capability of the Appellant in those acts Umeh Constitute Criminal Offences; and

ii. The affected Electoral officials were never joined as parties to the Petition?

2. Whether the tribunal was right in its decision that there was improper accreditation, non-stamping of result sheets, under supply and over supply of ballot papers, cancellations and mutilations of result sheets, non correlation between forms EC8A(1) and EC40A, disparity between voters register and unit figures, absence of photographers on voters register, indiscriminate markings of voters register, filling of result sheets outside INEC designated units, non-account of ballot papers etc on the basis that some of them are evidence that do not need to be pleaded and some of those allegations are within the ambit of law and need not be pleaded when the allegations are material facts which ought to be specifically pleaded? (Distilled from Ground 2)

3. Whether the Tribunal was right in examining and relying upon documents dumped on it including statements of results form EC8A(i) EC8B(i), EC8C(i), EC8D(i), EC25A, EC40A and Voters Registers among others and therefore reaching the conclusion that there were irregularities in the documentation of the election and its results when those documents were never demonstrated by witnesses made available for Cross examination on such demonstrations? (Distilled from Ground 3).

4. Whether the Tribunal was right in relying upon counter-part result sheets (which were not tendered by their makers) for its conclusions? (Distilled from Grounds 4, 5 and 7)