Senator Julius Ali Ucha & Anor V. Chief Martin Nwancho Elechi & Ors (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Ebonyi State on the 11th day of November 2011.

The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

The 1st Petitioner, now the Appellant and the 1st Respondent contested in the governorship election held in Ebonyi State on the 26th of April, 2011. The 1st Respondent was declared winner by the 3rd Respondent. The Petitioners then filed a petition at the Tribunal to challenge the result of the Election on the following grounds:

1. That the election and return of the 1st Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices/non-compliance with the provisions and principles of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Manual for Electoral Officials 2011 and Guidelines.
2. That the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by the majority of lawful and valid votes cast at the said election.
3. That the 1st Petitioner was the person that scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the said election and ought to have been returned by the 3rd to 5th Respondents as the winner of the election.

Issues were joined by the parties and upon conclusion of hearing, final addresses were exchanged. Based on the arguments contained in the final addresses and the assessment of evidence, the Tribunal gave judgment against the Petitioners.

The Petitioners being dissatisfied with the judgment has brought this appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant filed amended brief to which the Respondent filed Respondents amended brief. Also at the hearing the 2nd Respondent’s counsel Mr. Ofodile Okafor SAN withdrew the notice of objection and arguments thereon which was thereafter struck out in the brief settled by Ricky Turfa SAN Onikoko SAN and Jolauro.

The Appellants’ counsel identified 6 issues for determination as follows:

1. Whether the Honourable Tribunal reached a perverse judgment when upon finding rightly that the evidence of the respondents’ witnesses were worthless, they refused to rely on the Petitioners’ unreproached evidence and determine their case on the basis of minimal proof? (Distilled from ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal)
2. Whether the Honourable Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence adduced by the Petitioners in proof of the allegation of non-compliance with the electoral act and manual for election officials 2011 in the conduct of the Ebonyi State Governorship Election in Afikpo North Local Government, Abakaliki Local Government, Afikpo South Local Government, Ebonyi Local Government, Ezza North Local Government, Ezza South Local Government, Ikwo Local Government, Ivo Local Government, Izzi Local Government, Ohaozora Local Government, Ohaukwu Local Government and Onicha Local Government, Ebonyi State, in coming to a decision that the Petition was not proved in respect of same? (Distilled from grounds 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 25 of the Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was wrong in treating and discountenancing the copious and uncontroverted documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioners, on the basis that they were dumped on the Tribunal notwithstanding that each was a statutory form tendered individually, admitted as exhibits through a witness and thereafter related to the affected areas during hearing of the petition and some witnesses cross-examined in respect thereof? (Distilled from grounds 2, 3, 19 & 20 of the Notice of Appeal.
4. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was wrong when they refused to rely on the favourable evidence elicited from the respondents’ witnesses in the course of cross-examination by the Petitioners and thereby reckoned without such evidence in holding that the Petitioners’ claims were not proved? (Distilled from grounds 5, 18 & 21 of the Notice of Appeal).
5. Whether having regards to the printed records, the Honourable Members of the tribunal reached a perverse decision when they made the adverse finding of fact that the Petitioners’ witness admitted during hearing that the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Guidelines but such could not been gleaned from the record? (Distilled from ground 14 of the Notice of Appeal).
6. Whether the Honourable Members of the tribunal were wrong when they held that the Petitioners failed to tender any result sheet in proof of the tabulation in his petition? (Distilled from ground 24).

The 1st Respondent’s counsel in the brief settled by J.O. Ibik SAN identified six issues for determination very similar in content but more concise than the Appellants’ issues. They are in paragraph 3.1 of the brief.

The 2nd Respondent identified at paragraph 3.0 of the brief settled by G. Ofodile-Okafor SAN six issues for determination couched in different form accentuating different grounds of appeal. Dr. Amaechi Nwaiwu in paragraph 7.1 in the brief settled on behalf of the 3rd- 1775th Respondents also couched the six issues submitted for determination in a different form accentuating different complaints in the grounds of appeal.

I will for the purposes of this appeal adopt the issues as distilled by the learned senior counsel for the Appellant as they seem to me to address more particularly the complaints raised by the grounds of appeal.

ISSUE ONE

The Appellants’ counsel contended that the judgment of the Honourable Tribunal was perverse and unfounded as it was based on wrongful evaluation and assessment of relevant evidence before it.

He further contended that the judgment was not supported by any evidence on the record. He alleged that the election and return of the 1st Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices/non-compliance with the provisions and principles of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and the Manual for election officials 2011 and that the Tribunal should have held as such on the correct evaluation of the evidence before it.

Learned counsel stated that at the Tribunal, the Appellant called 118 witnesses including the 1st Appellant, a finger print expert and polling units’ agent who gave eye witness accounts and that the Tribunal did not fault the evidence given by these witnesses for want of credibility. He also claimed that the Appellants tendered a total of 145 exhibits which were electoral documents duly obtained from and certified by INEC upon court-ordered inspection. He stated that on the other hand, none of the Respondents tendered any electoral document to challenge or contradict the enormous documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioners. He further claimed that all the witnesses called by the Respondents were discountenanced by the Tribunal for bizarre incompetence. He referred to the Tribunal’s judgment at page 3182 Volume 6 of the record of appeal. He submitted that despite all these, the Tribunal still gave judgment in favour of the Respondents. He argued that after the Tribunal had resolved against the Respondents the question of credibility of their witnesses, all that was left for it to do was evaluate the largely unchallenged documentary evidence tendered and the uncontradicted supporting oral evidence of the Appellants’ witnesses in relation to the conduct of the said gubernatorial election. He claimed that the Tribunal failed to do this and instead wrongfully came to the conclusion that the Appellants had not proved their case. He cited WACHUKU VS. ONWUNWANE (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 1 SC 39 per RHODES-VIVOUR JSC.