George Odon V. Chief Nimi Barigha Amange & Anor (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.

In the National Assembly elections conducted on the 21st April, 2007 in the country by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC and 2nd Respondent in this appeal) the Appellant and 1st Respondent was candidates for the Bayelsa East Senatorial seat of Bayelsa State. The Appellant was sponsored by the Action Congress (AC) while the 1st Respondent was sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); both registered political parties for the elections. At the conclusion of the elections, the 1st Respondent was declared and returned the winner by the 2nd Respondent and being dissatisfied with the returns, the Appellant filed an election petition against same. The Appellant’s petition was presented on the 21st of May, 2008 before the National Assembly, Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal established for Bayelsa state. The petition went to trial after which the election Tribunal (hereinafter to be called lower tribunal) entered a judgment on the 5th of November, 2007 dismissing the claims of the Appellant in the petition. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant caused a Notice of appeal dated 23rd November, 2007 to be filed on the 26th of November, 2002 against same. The eight (8) grounds of appeal contained on the Notice of Appeal without the particulars are as follows:-

A. GROUND ONE

The learned Members of the Honourable Tribunal erred in law and misdirected themselves on the facts when they held that the Appellant failed to prove that the Iseni Asawo/Teme group to which the 1st Respondent agreed to membership of is a secret society.

B. GROUND TWO

The learned members of the Honourable Tribunal erred in law when they held that the Justice Adumein Commission of Inquiry report on the Odioma and Obioku Communities crises (exhibit “A”) is not admissible in evidence pursuant to Section II of the Commissions of Enquiry law, cap 24 of the laws of Eastern Nigeria, 1963.

C. GROUND THREE

The learned members of the Honorable Tribunal erred in law when they misinterpreted the provisions of Section 62A of the Criminal Code Act to mean that before a society can be designated as unlawful society, it must have been declared by an order of the president to be a society dangerous for the good government of Nigeria or any part thereof, a fact which the Honourable Tribunal said had not been so proven in this petition.

D. GROUND FOUR

The Honourable Tribunal having held that:

We agree with the learned petitioner’s counsel that the position of the law is that orders of a competent Court must be obeyed as long as they subsist; they remain binding on the parties thereto until set aside. Once a party knows of the substance of an order of court, he is obliged to obey it, no matter whatever the fundamental vice may be. An aggrieved party should apply to court that it be discharged. As long as it exists it must not be disobeyed. He cannot pick and choose which order to obey. See the cases cited by the Petitioner’s Counsel of P. P. M.C. Ltd. v. Delphi Petroleum INC (2005) 8 NWLR Part 928 page 458 Page at 483 per Salami JCA, Oshimole V. Federal Government of Nigeria (2005) part 907 Page 414 at page 437 per Muhammad JCA supra. See also the unreported case supplied to us by the Petitioner of All Nigeria Peoples Party & Anor v. INEC & 50 Ors at Pages 94-95.

It is not in doubt that injunctive orders were made by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory against the 2nd Respondent herein and the PDP and that in spite of these orders, the 2nd Respondent proceeded with the election and returned the 1st Respondent as winner.”

erred in law when it turned around to hold that it is only a final order of the said Court pursuant to Section 32 (5) of the Electoral Act (supra) disqualifying the 1st Respondent from contesting the election that can divest this Court of jurisdiction.”

E. GROUND FIVE