Engineer Samuel Oraegbunam V. Hon. Mrs. Bridget Chukwuka & Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMIRU SANUSI, J.C.A.,

This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly,Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal No. II of Anambra State sitting at Awka, (simply referred to as “the Tribunal”) delivered on the 22nd of February, 2008. At the said tribunal, the appellant herein, filed a petition on 11th May 2007 dated 10th May 2007 against the respondents. In the said petition, the appellant as petitioner claimed that he had contested the election held on 14th April 2007 in to the House of Assembly seat of Njikoka Constituency II of Anambra State on the platform of Action Congress party.

In the petition at the tribunal, the petitioner challenged the declaration and return of the 1st respondent who contested the said election with him on the same seal but on the ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents were officials of the 5th respondent INEC which is the official body authorized by the constitution to conduct election in the country. The main grouse of the petitioner is that the said election was fundamentally flawed by non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2006 hence he urged the Tribunal to void the election and declare it a nullity for that reason. According to the petitioner, the provisions of Section 20, 27, 28, 44(3), 44(2) 48, 64, 72, 74 and 78 of the Electoral Act 2006 were breached or violated.

To prove his petition at the tribunal, the petitioner/appellant called nine witnesses to testify for his case, while the 1st respondent on the order hand and the 2nd – 5th respondents called live and six witnesses respectively in defence of their respective cases. The tribunal after a full blown trial dismissed the petitioner’s petition.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition by the tribunal, the petitioner/appellant filed Notice and Grounds of Appeal on 13/3/2008 dated same day containing eight grounds of appeal which are reproduced hereunder with their particulars:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

“GROUND ONE (1)

The Tribunal erred in law when it ruled thus:

“In the circumstance of this case therefore, to interpret the amendments of the Practice Direction to offer protection of the use of pseudonyms to only the petitioner’s witnesses will not only go against the spirit of the decision in ABUBAKAR V. YAR ADUA supra but it will lead to absurdity and a denial of the right of the Respondents to be heard. First if this Tribunal Strikes out the witness statements of the Respondents it will mean that the evidence given by them in defence of their case including that given under cross examination be expunged. The result will be that the Respondents’ right to defend themselves which had been given would be withdrawn at judgment state. This to us will occasion great injustice which we do not think was the intention of the Practice Direction 2007 and the amendment thereof. .. We shall therefore not strike out the said statements on oath in the interest of doing substantial justice.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

The 1st to 5th Respondents in filing the mandatory’ statement on oath in support of their replies, used pseudonyms instead of their real and full names, and without any attempt to state their place of abode, nationality, their profession or trade as required by the provisions of Section 90(b) of the Evidence Act, Cap 112 LFN.

GROUND TWO (2)

The Tribunal misdirected itself when it held:

….. the petitioner has not discharged the burden on him of proving that the voter’s registers had strange names. PARTICULARS OF ERROR