IN a lead judgment delivered by Justice Kudirat Motonmori Kekere-Ekun, the
Supreme Court yesterday gave reasons for its decision to upturn the
verdicts of the Court of Appeal and the Rivers State Governorship
Petitions Tribunal, thereby declaring Nyesom Wike as the duly elected
governor of Rivers State.
The judgment read by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and agreed with by the
Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, Justices Ibrahim
Tanko Muhammad, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs, John Inyang
Okoro and Amiru Sanusi, the apex court held that the appeal filed by Wike
of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was meritorious on the grounds that
the tribunal was “induced by hearsay evidences,” raised by the All
Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Dakuku Peterside, in the
petition filed against the conduct of the election last year.
The apex court heard the appeal on January 27, this year and upturned the
rulings of the Court of Appeal and Tribunal, but adjourned till yesterday
to give reasons for its judgment.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, had on December 16, last year
delivered its ruling, affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, which on
October 24, last year nullified Wike’s election and ordered a re-run.
“I find and hold that this appeal is meritorious and it is allowed. The
judgment of the lower court delivered on November 16, last year and the
judgment of the Tribunal delivered on October 24, last year are hereby set
aside.
“The return of Nyesom Wike as governor of Rivers State by the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) is restored. The petition of the
petitioners is dismissed,” she said.
On the issue of locus standi and processes of service raised before the
Tribunal by the PDP and Wike, in which the ruling was later delivered by a
newly constituted chairman of the Tribunal, the apex court held against
the PDP, that in line with Section 294 (1) and (2) of the constitution,
the Tribunal was proper in its procedure.
On the issue of the use of card readers and evaluation and affirmation of
documents used during the conduct of the election, the court held that the
introduction of the card readers over time has received commendations from
it, but maintained that the use of manual voter’s register supersedes the
card readers.
The court also held that Section 49 (1) (2) of the Electoral Act was
extant in other to prove non-accreditation and non-voting, stating that
the tribunal and appellate court were unduly swayed by directives from
INEC on card reader use.
The court averred that Section 138 (1) of the Electoral Act is clear and
unambiguous, as regards INEC’s directives on issuance of directives for
conduct of elections, stating that the issue of non-compliance in the
circumstance of the matter is improper.
It also averred that the respondent in the appeal (APC) failed to
substantiate its claims, in line with its proof of evidence, as to the
allegation of massive rigging and violence in 23 of the Local Government
Areas, when it was only able to substantiate its claims on four of the
affected areas.
The INEC on April 11 and 12 conducted elections into the office of
governor, last year. Wike, who was sponsored by the PDP, was returned
elected, having scored the majority of lawful votes cast.Dakuku contested
on the platform of the 2nd respondent, APC.
with the return of Wike, Dakuku and APC filed a petition before the
Tribunal on the following grounds:
(i) That the 2nd respondent (Wike) was not duly elected by majority or
highest number of lawful votes cast at the election.
(ii) That the election of the 2nd respondent (Wike) was invalid and
unlawful by reason of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of
the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), manual for election officials 2015,
as well as the 1st respondent’s 2015 general elections approved
guidelines and regulations.
(iii) The election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices.
Justice Kekere-Ekun, after a perusal of Notice and Grounds of Appeal and
issues formulated by the parties, noted: “I find the appellants issues apt
for the determination of the appeal. Some of the issues will be considered
together where appropriate.”
Issues One and Two concerned the competence of the ruling of the Tribunal
delivered on September 9, last year and signed by Ambursa J., who did not
participate in the hearing of the application that gave rise to the said
ruling.Issues one and two were ruled in the appellant’s (Wike’s) favour.
Issues three and four concerned the competence of the issuance and service
of the election petition outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in
purported breach of Sections 96, 97, 98 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process
Act Cap. S.6 LFN 2004, and the effect of non-compliance with the stamp and
seal requirement, as prescribed by the Rules of Professional Conduct for
Legal Practitioners made pursuant to section 12 of the Legal Practitioners
Act Cap. L11 LFN 2004.
They were ruled against the appellant (Wike).Issue Five, concerning the
locus standi of the 1st and 2nd respondents to present the petition,
subject matter of the appeal on ground of failure to comply with Section
21 of the Electoral Act, which requires 21-day notice to be given to INEC
before the conduction of primaries by a political party, was resolved
against the appellant.
Issues Six and Seven concerned the evaluation of the documentary evidence
by the Tribunal and the affirmation of same by the court below.
They were both resolved in favour of the appellant.Issue Eight, contended
by E.C. Ukala (SAN), that the ground of the petition, which included
non-compliance with the manual for election officials last year and
general elections approved guidelines and regulations was outside the
purview of Sections 138 (1) (b) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended),
was resolved in the appellant’s favour.
Issue Nine raised the question as to whether failure to follow the manual
or guidelines has the effect of rendering the election void and whether
there is a conflict between Section 49 and 52 (1) (b) of the Electoral
Act, on one hand and the Manual for Election Officials 2015 and the
approved guidelines and regulations made by INEC.
The issue was resolved against the appellant.Issues 10 and 11 in respect
of the submission of senior counsel for the appellant that the lower court
erred in failing to apply the decisions of the court in Kakih vs PDP
(2014) 5 NWLR (pt.1430) 377 and Ucha vs Elechi (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317)
330 on the burden of proof of non-compliance with the Electoral Act,
non-voting, misconduct and non-conduct of the election, was resolved in
the appellant’s favour.
Justice Kekere-Ekun concluded as follows: “Notwithstanding the resolution
of issues 3, 4, 5, and 9 against the appellant, I hold that the appellant
has shown sufficient reason for the court to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the Tribunal and the court below.
“It is for this reason that I allowed this appeal on the 27 of January,
2016.”“The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, delivered on
16/12/2015, which affirmed the judgment of the Rivers State Governorship
Election Tribunal, delivered on 24/10/2015, was accordingly set aside.
“The petition of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was hereby dismissed and the
return of the appellant as the duly-elected Governor of Rivers State by
the 3rd Respondent (INEC) restored. Parties shall bear the cost.”
The Court of Appeal had on December 16, 2015 affirmed the judgment of the
Rivers Governorship Election Tribunal, which ruled that the election of
Nyesom Wike was not valid.
The Tribunal on October 24, last year nullified the election of Wike,
ordering that a fresh election be conducted in the state.