Micah Akeems v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Ors (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellant, sponsored by a registered political party known as the National Rescue Movement (NRM), was a candidate in the Governorship Election conducted by the 1st respondent in Bayelsa State on the 11th November, 2023. The 2nd and 3rd respondent were also candidates for offices of Governor and Deputy Governor; respectively, sponsored by the 4th respondent.

At the end of the election, the 2nd and 4th respondents scored 175, 196 votes and the 2nd respondent was declared and returned as the winner of the election with majority of valid votes cast.

The appellant scored a total of 415 valid votes at the election and because he was dissatisfied with the declaration and return of the 2nd respondent as the winner who was duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election, he challenged same before the Bayelsa State Governorship Election Tribunal (Tribunal) by way of an election petition in line with the requirements of the Election Act, 2022.

The grounds of the appellants petition, presented before the tribunal on the 1st December, 2023 were set out at page 5 of the petition as follows:-

i. That the 2nd and 3rd respondents were not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

ii. The election was invalid by reasons of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

iii. That the 2nd and 3rd respondent (sic), were, at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election.

However, in the course of the trial of the petition, the appellant abandoned grounds i and ii of the petition, and testified as the sole witness in support of the remaining ground iii.

The material facts pleaded by the appellant in support of the ground iii of the petition are in paragraphs 65 – 95 which appear at pages 14 – 18 of the petition (also pages 14 – 18 of vol. 1 of the record of appeal).

The summary of the case presented in the said paragraphs was that the 3rd respondent submitted a forged NYSC Exemption Certificate to the 1st respondent in his INEC FORM CF001 and INEC Form EC9 in order to contest the election in question.

In paragraphs 97 – 100 of the petition, which appear at page 19 of the record of appeal, the appellant asserted that the 3rd respondent is not educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent because the 3rd respondent had sworn in his INEC Form EC9 submitted to the 1st respondent that the highest educational qualification he has is the Primary First School Leaving Certificate.

These averments were repeated word for word, by the appellant as the sole witness presented in support of the ground in the statement on oath deposed to by him which appears at pages 43 – 47 of volume 1 of the record of appeal.

In response to the allegations in support of ground (iii) of the petition, the 2nd and 3rd respondents in their separate replies to the petition, in paragraphs 37 – 44 of the 3rd respondents reply to the petition, denied the assertion of presenting a forged NYSC Certificate in his INEC Form CF001 and INEC Form EC9.