Mr. Babatunde Falola & Anor V. Mr. Samuel Ademola Adejumobi & Anor (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.

In the House of Assembly elections conducted by the 2nd Respondent on 14th April, 2007, the 1st Petitioner was the candidate who contested the election on the platform of the Action Congress (AC) for the Shaki East/Atisbo seat in the Oyo State House of Assembly while the 1st Respondent was sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the same Constituency. At the conclusion of the election the 2nd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent the winner of the election having scored the highest votes in the said election. The Petitioners were dissatisfied with the results declared and filed a Petition before the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal of Oyo State. In the Notice of Petition dated 11th May, 2007 and filed on the same day which was later amended on 14th June, 2007, the reliefs which the Petitioners now Appellants sought were:-

“1. that it may be determined that the 1st respondent Mr. Samuel Ademola Adejumobi was not duly and/or validly elected as member House of Assembly, Oyo State, and that his election was void and he ought not to have been returned.

2. An order for the Tribunal disqualifying the 1st Respondent, Mr. Samuel Ademola Adejumobi for the election to the State House of Assembly (Shaki East/Atisbo Constituency) Oyo State held on the 14th of April, 2007 and declaring the 1st Petitioner, Mr. Babatunde Falola, the 1st runner-up as the winner and return him as duly elected or in the ALTERNATIVE an order of the Tribunal nullifying the election of the 1st Respondent held on the 14th April, 2007 and directing that fresh election be held in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act of 2006.

The Petitioners based their Petition on the following grounds:-

(i) The 1st Respondent had at the time of the election been indicted for murder, arson and looting of properties at Irawo-Owode by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry set up by the Oyo State Government headed by Hon. Justice Adekola (Rtd) which indictment has been accepted by the Oyo State Government as published in Oyo State Gazette No.19 Vol. 31 published on the 14th day of September, 2006.

(ii) The 1st Respondent presented a fake certificate to INEC, as he never obtained any PGDPA and MPA from Ambrose Ali University, Ekpoma or any University at all as claimed by him in his INEC form CFOOI and the certificates/notification of results to that effect are fake.

The third ground on the 1st Respondent’s failure to pay his tax as and when due and obtaining a valid tax clearance certificate was abandoned during the pre-trial stage leaving grounds 1 and 2 as the basis for the Petition.

Evidence was called and documents tendered and learned counsel submitted written addresses. At the close of the case the Tribunal dismissed the Petition. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the Petitioners as Appellants appealed against the said judgment and identified the following four issues for determination:-

(i) Whether from the pleadings and evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was Justified in holding that the indictment for murder, arson and looting of properties do not constitute fraud within section 107(1)(h) of the 1999 Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

(ii) Whether from the pleadings and evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified to have construed the indictment against the 1st respondent to mean indictment for communal disturbance rather than fraud.

(iii) Whether from the pleadings and evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified to hold that Ademola Adejumobi the person indicted was not the 1st respondent.

(iv) Whether or not the Petitioner has failed to discharge the onus of proof required of him that the 1st Respondent’s Post Graduate Diploma in Public Administration (PGDPA) and Master in Public Administration (MPA) submitted to INEC were forged and a fortiori fake.

Issues (i), (ii) and (iii) can be taken together since they are concerned with what constitutes an indictment for fraud as contained in section 107(i)(h) of the 1999 Constitution and the person indicted in the Gazette and issue (iv) has to do with whether the presentation of forged certificate by 1st Respondent to INEC was established.