Saidu Umar & Ors v. Aliyu Ahmed Sokoto & Ors (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division sitting in Abuja, delivered on the 27th day of November 2023.

The court below affirmed the decision of the trial tribunal dismissing the appellants’ petition challenging the declaration and return of the 1st respondent as the duly elected Governor of Sokoto State, following the elections conducted on the 18th day of March 2023.

The main contention of the appellants in this appeal is that the 1st respondent was erroneously declared winner of the election by the 4th respondent. That the respondents votes were inflated to read while the votes of the appellant were recorded as 404,632,00.

Appellants contended that this was not a true reflection of the votes they scored at the Election. They eventually filed a petition at the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, Sokoto, the major grievance of the appellant was that the 1st and 2nd respondents were not qualified to contest the election, and that they were not elected by a majority of lawful votes.

The appellants alleged before the tribunal that the 1st respondent did not accompany his form EC9 with affidavit as required by law which omission nullified his candidature. The appellants also alleged that the 2nd respondent presented forged documents as evidence of his educational qualifications.

Appellants alleged that wrong results were hurriedly announced by the 4th respondent declaring the 1st respondent as the duly elected Governor of Sokoto State. Appellants also alleged that Election did not hold or were cancelled in 138 polling units with a total number of registered voters of about 85,487 and 82,809 PVCs were collected in the 138 polling units.

Appellants said the figures given out exceed the margin of votes against the appellants which they gave as 49,029. After hearing the petition, the tribunal delivered judgment on the 30th day of September 2023, dismissing the appellants petition. The appellants filed an appeal at the lower court via notice of appeal on the 19th day of October 2023. On the 27th day of November 2023, the lower court also dismissed the appellants appeal and affirmed the decision of the tribunal.

The appellants became nettled by the decision of the lower court and therefore further appeal to this court.

Appellants’ brief of argument was filed on the 23rd day of December 2023 by learned senior counsel S. I. Ameh, SAN, leading other counsel. In the appellants brief of argument, counsel submitted four issues for determination.

The issues are reproduced as follows:

1. “Whether the Court of Appeal was right, when despite the evidence before it and its finding that the certificates presented by the 1st and 2nd respondents are reprehensibly imbued in controversy and apparent scandal, proceeded to hold that the appellants did not lead credible evidence to prove that the 1st and 2nd respondents presented false/forged certificates to the 4th respondent, INEC
2. Whether by section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the holding of the Court of Appeal, that the evidence of non-holding and cancellation of election in 138 polling units was apparent on the face of the documents before the court, the decision of the Court of Appeal that the appellants did not prove their case is not perverse.
3. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal that the witness statement on oath of the subpoenaed witnesses who were not under the control of the appellants, ought to have been filed along with the petition within 21 days is not perverse and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held at page 90 of its judgment that exhibits SW68 and SW87 produced by subpoenaed witnesses were invalid.”

In the joint brief of argument filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents on the 8th day of January 2024, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, learned senior counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, leading other counsel, also distilled three issues for the determination, they are also reproduced as follows:

1. Having regard to the clear provisions of section 285(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), section 132(7) of the Electoral Act, 2022, paragraphs 4(5)(b) and 41(3) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, and the binding judicial precedents on the point, whether the lower court was not right when it affirmed the decision of the tribunal which expunged the evidence of PW29, PW30 and PW31 (subpoenaed witnesses) and all the documents tendered and admitted in evidence through them.
2. Considering the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, the pleadings and reliefs sought by the petitioners/appellants as well as the dearth of admissible evidence in support of appellants’ case, whether the lower court was not right when it affirmed the decision of the trial tribunal which dismissed appellants’ petition.
3. In view of the clear provisions of section 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), section 134 of the Electoral Act, 2022, binding judicial authorities on the subject, as well as the appellants’ case before the trial tribunal, whether the lower court did not correctly hold that the 1st and 2nd respondents were qualified to contest election into the offices of Governor and Deputy Governor of Sokoto State.”

Learned senior counsel Hassan Liman, SAN, leading other counsel settled the 3rd respondents brief of argument on 5th day of January 2024 and nominated the following issues for determination:

1. “Whether the Court of Appeal was not right when it held that appellants did not lead credible evidence to prove their allegation of non-qualification of the and 2nd respondents to contest the Governorship election held on the 18th day of March 2023.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was not right when it held that the appellants needed to have called oral evidence from the Polling Units to speak to the INEC Form EC40G tendered by the appellants through the Bar.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was not right when it held that the tribunal rightly rejected and expunged the evidence of PW29 – 31 and all documents tendered through them for the reason of the appellants’ failure to frontload the witness statement on oaths of the said witnesses.”

Learned counsel Chukwudi Enebeli, prepared the 4th respondent’s brief of argument and filed on the day of January 2024, counsel formulated three issues for the determination, reproduced as follows: