Nasko & Anor V. Bello & Ors (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the lower Court, Abuja Division delivered on 16/11/2019, which affirmed the decision of the trial Governorship Election Petition Tribunal of Niger State, which affirmed the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as the duly elected Governor of Niger State by the 3rd Respondent. It is the issue that the lower Court having declared the judgment of the trial Tribunal a nullity, still went ahead to affirm the judgment it declared a nullity. Dissatisfied, the Appellants have appealed to this Honourable Court seeking for the reliefs contained in the Notice of Appeal.

Sequel to the election conducted by the 3rd Respondent on 9/3/2019 for the office of the Governor of Niger State, the 1st Respondent, who won the election was duly declared and returned as the winner of the said election. Dissatisfied, the Appellants petitioned the 1st Respondent on 27/3/2019 challenging his return. The grounds of the petition are:

1. The 1st Respondent was at the time of the Governorship Election of 9th March, 2019 in Niger State, disqualified to contest the said election.
2. The 1st Respondent submitted to the 3rd Respondent an affidavit, FORM CF001, containing false information and forged documents in furtherance of his qualification to contest the Governorship Election of 9th March, 2019.
3. The 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the Governorship Election of 9th March, 2019.
4. The election and return of the 1st Respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices.
5. The election and return of the 1st Respondent is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Guidelines.

After the trial, the Tribunal in its final judgment on 18/9/2019 dismissed the petition, hence the appeal to the lower Court and then this Court by the Appellants.

In seeking the determination of the appeal before this Court, the Appellants distilled these issues:

1. Whether the lower Court was right when it upheld the decision of the trial Tribunal that because the 3rd Respondent (INEC) was or never in possession of the originals of documents submitted to it by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, documents annexed to

2

Exhibits B1 and B2 admitted evidence, cannot be certified by the 3rd Respondent and where certified, it cannot tantamount to the proof required of allegation of giving false information and presenting forged documents by a candidate.

2. Whether the 1st Respondent’s affidavit of correction dated 18th November, 2018 and another Declaration of Age dated 18th November, 2018 can correct the false/forged Declaration of Age dated 14th August, 2018 submitted to INEC and acted upon by INEC since the 9th of November, 2018.
3. Whether the Court was right to uphold the evaluation of evidence by the trial Tribunal which failed to properly consider, evaluate and pronounce on all the evidence tendered and placed before it and thus breached the Appellants’ right to fair hearing and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
4. Whether the Court having found that the judgment of the trial Tribunal did not meet the constitutional requirement had an obligation to consider the records and grant the reliefs sought by the Appellants in the Petition based on the principle of jus ibi remedium,

The 1st Respondent in responding distilled two issues for the

3

determination of the appeal:

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were correct to upheld/sustained(sic) the decision of the trial Tribunal that rejected the Exhibits tendered by the Appellants and to dismiss the Appellants’ petition for lacking in merit?
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have affirmed the declaration return of the 1st Respondent as the duly elected Governor of Niger State as found by the trial Tribunal despite the fact that they declared the judgment of the trial Tribunal a nullity?

The 2nd and 3rd Respondents separately filed their briefs and prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the Appellants.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:

The 1st Respondent by an application dated 9/12/2019 and filed on 12/12/2019 objected to the competence of the Appellants’ appeal vide a Preliminary Objection that this Honourable Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Having argued same in his brief at pages 2-9, filed on same 12/12/2019, the 1st Respondent’s learned senior Counsel, J.S. Okutepa, SAN, listed the grounds of his objection as follows:

a. Appellants herein in