Mr. Danladi Baido V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, J.C.A.

This is a notice of motion filed on the 24th day of January, 2008 praying for the following orders:

1. AN ORDER granting leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Honourable Court as an interested party against the judgment of the Taraba State National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal in Petitions Nos. EPT/TR/G/05/2007 & EPT/TR/G/12/2007 (sic) delivered on 9th day of January, 2008.
2. AN ORDER deeming the annexed proposed notice and grounds of appeal attached hereto as exhibit MM6 as properly filed and served.
3. AND for such orders or such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The application is supported by an 18-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Danladi Baido (the applicant herein). Germane to this application are paragraphs 3 to 17 of the affidavit which are hereunder reproduced:

“3. That I contested the 2nd respondent’s gubernatorial primaries for Taraba State alongside 7 other candidates on 9-12-2006.

4. That I was successful in the primaries wherein I scored 2445 votes out of a total of 4325 votes. Attached herewith is a copy of the statement of Result and the Electoral Committee’s Report attached and marked ‘exhibits MMI and MM2’ respectively.
5. That after the primaries our party, the People’s Democratic Party (2nd respondent) wrote to INEC headquarters (1st respondent) a letter wherein it forwarded a list of all its gubernatorial candidates for the 36 States of the Federation. The said letter is annexed herewith and marked ‘exhibit MM3’.
6. That sometimes in February 2007, the 2nd respondent wrote to the 1st respondent a letter in which it sought to substitute my name as the gubernatorial candidate of the party with the name of the 3rd respondent. Attached herewith is a copy of the letter annexed and marked ‘exhibit MM4’.
7. That I have been informed by my counsel M. M. Nuruddeen, Esq., in his chambers on 17th January, 2008 at about 6pm and I verily believe him as follows:

(a) That S. 34 of the Electoral Act, 2006 requires the party to give ‘cogent and verifiable reason’ for the substitution of candidates earlier submitted to the 1st respondent.

(b) That no reason other than ‘lack of enough information’ was assigned for substituting me in ‘Exhibit MM4’ by the 2nd respondent.

(c) That the letter of substitution is clearly in violation of the Electoral Act, 2006 having not disclosed cogent and verifiable reasons.

(d) That accordingly I was the gubernatorial candidate of PDP in Taraba State when Governorship election was held on 14-4-2007.

8. That in the said Governorship election I scored 515016 votes and ought to have been declared the winner and not the 3rd respondent who was not a candidate at the election.
9. That the Taraba State National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal delivered judgment in Petitions Nos. G/EPT/TR/G/05/2007 & EPT/TR12/2007 (sic) (Consolidated) filed by the 4th and 5th respondents challenging the return of the 3rd respondent as the Elected Governor of Taraba State on 9th January, 2008. Attached herewith is a C.T.C. of the judgment attached and marked ‘exhibit MM5’.
10. That the tribunal dismissed all the grounds of the petitions including the ground alleging that the 3rd respondent who was returned as elected was in fact not a candidate at the election.
11. That the 3rd respondent returned by both the 1st respondent and the Taraba State Electoral Tribunal was not only a candidate at the gubernatorial election, he was not even an aspirant in the PDP gubernatorial primaries.
12. That I have a genuine legal interest in these proceedings since I am the legal candidate of PDP (the 2nd respondent) the party which won the Governorship Election.
13. That I am also the person elected as Governor of Taraba State in the April 14th, 2007 Gubernatorial Election.
14. That I am dissatisfied with the decision of the tribunal and wish to appeal to this Honourable Court as an interested party.
15. That the justice of this case demands that I be allowed to appeal against the judgment of the tribunal so that this Honourable Court can do full and comprehensive justice in this case.
16. That I have accordingly prepared my proposed notice of appeal which is herein attached and marked ‘exhibit MM6’.
17. That I have further been informed by my counsel M. M. Nuruddeen, Esq., and I verily believe him as follows:

(a) That the proposed notice of appeal contains good and arguable grounds of appeal on newly established and settled issues of law.”

Each of the five respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection and a counter-affidavit in opposing the application, except the 5th respondent, each of the parties herein filed a written address/argument.

In the preliminary objections of all the respondents, three issues are identified viz:

(a) The locus standi of the applicant to bring this application;

(b) The competency of the application from which this court will derive jurisdiction; and

(c) Abuse of the process of the court.