As S’ Court Decides on Remaining Four Governorship Election Cases…

With 17 state governors retaining their seats because their challengers failed to prove allegations made against their elections, will the remaining four governors be as lucky as their colleagues at the apex court, Alex Enumah asks.

Within the last one month, the Supreme Court has heard appeals against the 2023 governorship election from 21 states of the federation. In the last two weeks it has also delivered judgments involving 17 states, remaining just four, whose judgments are just by the corner.

Against the hope of some litigants as well as permutations of pundits, the apex court declined appeals to sack some governors, especially those earlier sacked by either the election petition tribunals or the Court of Appeal.

Among the governorship election cases that attracted the most attention as well as generated much tension were those of Kano, Plateau, Zamfara and Nasarawa states.

But, the apex court held that the decisions of the appellate court to sack the governors of Kano, Plateau and Zamfara states were not in tandem with the law and subsequently went ahead to nullify the decisions and declared that the governors were duly elected and declared so by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

In the case of Nasarawa State and also Kaduna State, the apex court however upheld the judgments of the Court of Appeal, which had nullified the judgments of the tribunal which had voided their victories at the March 18, 2023 governorship election.

Recall that while the tribunal in the case of Nasarawa had declared Hon. David Ombugadu of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as the authentic winner of the governorship election as against the declaration of Governor Abdullahi Sule of the All Progressives Congress (APC) by INEC, in the case of Kaduna State, the tribunal had voided the election of Governor Uba Sani of the APC and ordered a rerun in four local government areas.

The question on the lips of many as they await the apex court judgment is would any of the remaining four be so unfortunate to have his election nullified and his declaration as a governor set aside. Would there be a repeat of the 2020 shocker that saw the eviction of Governor Emeka Ihedioha of the PDP from the Government House in Owerri, Imo State on the grounds that he did not win majority of the lawful votes cast at the March 2019 governorship poll in Imo State.

Recall that the apex court had in a unanimous judgment declared Hope Uzodinma of the APC winner of the 2019 polls after restoring votes said to have accrued to him but were not included in the overall votes by INEC.

According to the judgment delivered by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun in 2020, “Vote due to the appellant, Senator Hope Uzodinma and the APC from 388 Polling Units were wrongly excluded from scores ascribed to the appellant”, she held, and went further to order that, “the appellant votes from 388 Polling Units unlawfully excluded from the appellant vote declared shall be added and that the first respondent, Emeka Ihedioha, was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the said election.

“His return as the elected governor of Imo State is hereby declared null and void and accordingly set aside.

“It is hereby declared that the first appellant (Mr Uzodinma) holds the majority of lawful votes cast at the governorship election held in Imo State on March 9, 2019.”

Subsequently Kekere-Ekun held that Uzodinma haven satisfied the mandatory constitutional requirements be declared governor.

“It is hereby declared that first appellant, Senator Hope Uzodinma, is the winner of the governorship of Imo State held on March 9, 2019. The certificate issued to the first defendant (Mr Ihedioha) is hereby withdrawn.

“It is hereby ordered that the certificate of return shall be issued to the first appellant, Senator Hope Uzodinma, forthwith and he should be sworn in as the governor of Imo State,” the apex court held.

As we await the verdict in the remaining four appeals and as anxiety begins to build, the question is; among the appeals involving Sokoto, Rivers, Taraba and Adamawa, which would likely go the way of Emeka Ihedioha.

Recall that the apex court last week heard three of the appeals and has reserved judgment which would be delivered anytime before Friday. Those whose judgments are pending include Rivers, Sokoto, Taraba and Adamawa.

For Rivers, it is APC’s Tonye Cole against Governor Siminalayi Fubara, who was recently threatened with impeachment from his former boss, Nyesome Wike, through a faction of the state’s legislators.

While candidate of the Labour Party (LP) withdrew her appeal shortly after it was filed, the apex court had last Monday, dismissed the appeal by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM). The appeal was dismissed following its withdrawal by the APM’s counsel, Confidence Kere. When the case of the APM was called its counsel, Kere attempted to adopt and argue its client’s case, however Kere was cut short by the panel led by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who pointed out that the APM lacked the legal standing to institute the appeal on the grounds that it did not take part in the actual election.

Kere subsequently applied orally to withdraw the appeal and since the respondents did not object to the withdrawal, the apex court subsequently dismissed it.

Meanwhile, Cole in his appeal is seeking the reversal of both the Court of Appeal and tribunal judgments which upheld the declaration of Fubara of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as winner of the March 18, 2023 governorship election in Rivers State. He insisted that the lower court erred in law when it agreed with the Rivers State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal that he did not prove his allegations against the governorship poll. The APC’s hopeful therefore urged the apex court to allow his appeal and grant the reliefs sought which included the setting aside of the concurrent judgments of the two lower courts and declare him winner of the March 18, 2023 governorship poll in Rivers State.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared PDP’s Fubara as governor having won majority of the lawful votes cast at the governorship poll.

Dissatisfied, APC and Cole citing alleged irregularities, non-compliance with the Electoral Act, corrupt practices, amongst others, had asked the tribunal to void Fubara’s election as governor.

Besides they claimed that Fubara was not qualified to contest the election over alleged violation of the law because he had allegedly continued to sign documents as the Rivers State’s Accountant-General despite being nominated governorship candidate of the PDP.

But, the tribunal in a unanimous judgment held that the allegations were not proved to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought and subsequently dismissed it.

Dissatisfied, Cole approached the appellate court to reverse the judgment of the tribunal, but was told he did not advance any cogent reason to warrant the Court of Appeal to deviate from the findings and conclusion of the tribunal.

The judgment of the appellate court led to the instant appeal which has now been reserved for judgment anytime from now, as the 60 days allowed by law for the apex court to hear and deliver its judgment expires on Friday, January 26, 2024.

Another case which would also lapse on January 26, is that of Sokoto State, where candidate of the PDP, Saidu Umar, is challenging the election of Ahmed Aliyu as Governor of Sokoto State. Umar and the PDP had listed nine grounds upon which they are asking the Supreme Court to set aside the concurrent judgments of the election petition tribunal and the Court of Appeal which affirmed the election of Ahmed Aliyu as Governor of Sokoto State.

INEC had in March last year declared Aliyu and his party, the APC winner of the Sokoto governorship election, having won majority of the lawful votes cast at the poll.

Dissatisfied Umar and PDP citing grounds such as malpractices, non-compliance as well as non-qualification urged the tribunal to void the election of Aliyu as governor.

In one hand, they prayed the tribunal to sack Aliyu and declare them authentic winner of the election, while on the other they urged that the election be declared inconclusive and a rerun in about 138 polling units be ordered.

But, the three-member panel of Justices of the tribunal, led by Justice Haruna Msheila, in a unanimous judgment delivered on September 30, dismissed the petition for lacking in merit. The tribunal held that the petitioners failed to prove the six grounds formulated in their joint petition.

According to the tribunal, the grounds stated in the petition bordered on alleged ineligibility of Aliyu and his deputy to contest, falsification of certificates, variation of names, election frauds and non compliance with electoral guidelines.

The lower court held in its judgment that the petitioners were unable to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt as required by law, as 70 per cent of exhibits they tendered were out of context because they relate to State Assembly elections conducted on the same day.

Dissatisfied, Umar and PDP went to the Court of Appeal, which in its own judgment affirmed the decision of the tribunal. The three-member panel of the appellate court had in a unanimous judgment, held that the appellants failed to substantiate allegations of irregularities, noncompliance as well as non qualification contained in their appeal.

Recall that Aliyu had won the election with about 49,000 votes, while total number of registered voters in the affected polling units where election was cancelled was put at over 85,000 and the total number of collected Permanent Voters Card (PVC) was put at over 82,000.

Based on the above, the appellants had urged the appellate court to void the election of Aliyu, declare the March 18 election inconclusive and that the electoral umpire be ordered to conduct a supplementary election in the 138 polling units where election was cancelled.

They had presented INEC’s form EC40G (incident form) showing elections were cancelled due to over-voting or disruption.

In the lead judgment, the appellate court noted that the form EC40G, “shows electorates were given opportunity to vote but something went wrong culminating in the cancellation of the election”.

While stating that he doesn’t think it was necessary to call any person to speak again to such documents in line with Section 137 of the Electoral Act, Justice Mbaba Bassi who delivered the lead judgment, however, observed that precedence already set by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in related matters demand that the appellants lead oral evidence to support the allegation of manipulation of votes through the cancellation of election in 138 polling units.

Based on this, Bassi had held that the tribunal was right in expunging evidence of non-compliance and other alleged irregularities and malpractices because the evidences were presented by incompetent witnesses. He further held that the failure of the appellants to list and front-load the statement of the witnesses was fatal to their case.

Besides, the appellate court held that even though the appellants provided documents from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC ) to prove cancellation of election in 138 polling units across the state, their failure to call witnesses from the affected polling units to speak to the documents was fatal to their case.

Justice Bassi pointed out that reliance on Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022, was insufficient to prove cancellation without oral evidence.

On the issue of alleged certificate forgery, the appellate court similarly agreed with the tribunal that the appellants were unable to prove that the certificate submitted by the Governor and his deputy were forged.

While observing that allegations of forgery are criminal in nature and as such must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the panel stated that failure of the appellants to provide both the forged and original certificates before the court was fatal to their case.

Not satisfied yet, Umar and PDP approached the apex court to see how they can reverse the concurrent judgments of the two lower courts. The appellants through their team of lawyers led by Mr Sunday Ameh, SAN, claimed that “the judgment of the Court of Appeal is against the weight of evidence”, and as such should be set aside by the apex court.

“The Court of Appeal in its judgment ignored the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on the application of the provision of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022”, they submitted.

According to the appellants, the Court of Appeal made a positive finding that the evidence on record before the court demonstrated that the non-compliance complained of by the appellants were manifest from the Certified True Copies of documents relied upon, adding that by the doctrine of judicial precedent, the Court of Appeal was bound without any discretion by the decision of the Supreme Court in OYETOLA V. INEC (Supra) and not recent authorities of the Court of Appeal as erroneously held at page 104 of its judgment on the same point that the Supreme Court had made positive pronouncement on.

“The Supreme Court’s judgment in OYETOLA V. INEC ranks superior to the authorities of COLLINS VS INEC & ORS: (CA/AB)/EP/HR/IM/79/2023, delivered on 4/10/2023, and UKODHIKO VS PDP & ORS: CA/AS/EP/HR/OL/16/2023, delivered on 1/11/2023 heavily relied on by the Court of Appeal at page 104 of its Judgment”, they submitted.

Ameh accordingly asked the apex court to allow the appeal and set aside the concurrent judgments that affirmed Aliyu as governor.

However, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Governor Aliyu and the All Progressives Congress (APC), prayed the apex court to dismiss the appeal for being incompetent and lacking in merit. They submitted that the two lower court’s judgment is impeccable and provide no ground for the apex court to deviate from.

After listening to all parties, Justice Kekere-Ekun announced that judgment has been reserved to a date that would be communicated to parties.

Another appeal that would expire on January 26, is that of Sani and the NNPP, who want the apex court to set aside the concurrent judgments of the two lower courts which had dismissed their case against the election of Governor Kefas Agbu of the PDP, for lacking in merit. During last week’s proceedings, the appellants through their lead counsel, Mr. Olusegun Jolaawo, SAN, prayed the panel to allow the appeal, set aside the two lower court’s decision and declare Sani the authentic winner of the March 18, 2023 governorship election in Taraba State.

However, the respondents which included the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the governor and the PDP, argued otherwise, insisting that the case of the appellants was incompetent and should be dismissed.

After listening to all counsel in the matter, Justice Kekere-Ekun subsequently announced that judgment has been reserved to a date that would be communicated to parties in the matter.

Recall that the Court of Appeal, Abuja had in last November affirmed the election of People’s Democratic Party (PDP’s) Kefas Agbu as Governor of Taraba State.

A three-member panel of the appellate court in two separate appeals held that Agbu, was lawfully declared winner of the March 18, 2023 governorship poll in Taraba State.

Delivering judgment in the appeal filed by Prof Yahaya Sani of the New Nigerian People’s Party (NNPP), the appellate court had held that the allegations of non-compliance, irregularities and other malpractices were not proved by the appellant.

In a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Peter Affen, the appellate court faulted the appellant for dumping documents on the court, stressing that even if there was manifest incidents of malpractices or irregularities on the face of the documents, the appellant ought to have led oral evidence to support his allegations.

Besides, the court had dismissed the appeal for being incompetent and lacking in merit on grounds that the record of proceedings transmitted to the appellate court was not complete.

Earlier, delivering judgment in the cross appeal filed by the governor, the court struck out the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner was inconsistent in the reliefs sought in his petition.

According to the appellate court, while the appellants had prayed for nullification of the election on grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, they in another breath asked the court to pronounce them as winners of the same election on ground of scoring majority of lawful votes.

The court held that it is against the law for any litigant as in the case of NNPP and its governorship candidate to blow hot and cold at the same time.

Justice Affen further held that, having prayed that the election be nullified on account of non adherence with the Electoral Act, the alternative prayer that, they be declared winner of the same election have no legs to stand upon. The appellate court subsequently allowed the cross appeal and struck out the petition.

It would be recalled that a three-man panel of justices led by Justice G. A. Sunmonu of the Taraba state Governorship election petition Tribunal had on September 30, 2023 dismissed the petition filed by the NNPP and its governorship candidate for lacking in merit.

For Adamawa, the apex court though already dismissed the appeal by Umar Ardo of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against the election of Umaru Fintiri as Governor of Adamawa State, still have pending the appeal of the APC’s candidate, Senator Aisha Dahiru Benani.

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, had last December dismissed the appeal filed by Binani, for being incompetent and lacking in merit and subsequently affirmed the declaration of Fintiri as winner of the March 18, 2023 governorship election in Adamawa State.

According to the lead judgment prepared by Justice Tunde Oyebamiji Awoture, the appellant did not prove their petition as required by law at the tribunal and the lower tribunal was right in dismissing the said petition.

It was also the findings of the appellate court that the appellant’s brief was incompetent, having been filed prematurely. Besides the appellate court held that the record of appeal used in challenging the judgment of the tribunal was incomplete thereby making the appeal incompetent, adding that the appellant abandoned the petition at the lower tribunal and presented inconclusive evidence to prove allegations of non-compliance.

While faulting the appellant for dumping documents before the court, the appellate court held that the witnesses called by the petitioners/appellants were not only inappropriate but not relevant.

The appellate court subsequently upheld the judgment of the tribunal affirming the election of Fintiri as Governor of Adamawa State. It slammed a cost of N500,000 against the appellant in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

Recall that the Adamawa State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal had in a judgment delivered by Justice T. O. Uloho, dismissed the petition of Binani and the APC on the grounds that it, “woefully failed to establish their allegations of non- compliance with the electoral act and prove their case with cogent, credible and satisfactory evidence”.

INEC Returning Officer, Muhammed Mele, had declared Fintiri of the PDP winner of the governorship poll, after polling 430,861 votes to defeat his major counterpart Aisha Binani of the All Progressives Congress who polled 398,788 votes.

The tribunal further held that the court is an adjudicator and not an investigator, saying that all the petitioners’ witnesses came with documentary hearsay and failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Dissatisfied, Binani and the APC had approached the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the tribunal and declare them as authentic winner of the Adamawa State governorship poll.

However, following the affirmation of the tribunal’s judgment, Benani and APC have now taken their case to the apex court in further pursuit of their alleged victory at the governorship election.

Of the four pending governorship appeals before the Supreme Court, that of Sokoto State seems to be interesting. If the apex court did not allow over 165,000 voters in Kano State suffer disenfranchisement because of the negligence of the electoral officials, would the apex court allow the over 82,000 electorates in Sokoto, whose votes were cancelled suffer disenfranchisement, simply because the appellants did not lead oral evidence to support the documents showing cancellation of votes in 138 polling units? Recall also that the over 82,000 cancelled votes are far higher than the 49,000 votes upon which Aliyu was declared winner of the Sokoto governorship election.