IN a lead judgment delivered by Justice Kudirat Motonmori Kekere-Ekun, the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court yesterday gave reasons for its decision to upturn the
\nverdicts of the Court of Appeal and the Rivers State Governorship
\nPetitions Tribunal, thereby declaring Nyesom Wike as the duly elected
\ngovernor of Rivers State.<\/p>\n
The judgment read by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and agreed with by the
\nChief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, Justices Ibrahim
\nTanko Muhammad, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, Kumai Bayang Aka\u2019ahs, John Inyang
\nOkoro and Amiru Sanusi, the apex court held that the appeal filed by Wike
\nof the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was meritorious on the grounds that
\nthe tribunal was \u201cinduced by hearsay evidences,\u201d raised by the All
\nProgressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Dakuku Peterside, in the
\npetition filed against the conduct of the election last year.<\/p>\n
The apex court heard the appeal on January 27, this year and upturned the
\nrulings of the Court of Appeal and Tribunal, but adjourned till yesterday
\nto give reasons for its judgment.<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, had on December 16, last year
\ndelivered its ruling, affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, which on
\nOctober 24, last year nullified Wike\u2019s election and ordered a re-run.
\n\u201cI find and hold that this appeal is meritorious and it is allowed. The
\njudgment of the lower court delivered on November 16, last year and the
\njudgment of the Tribunal delivered on October 24, last year are hereby set
\naside.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe return of Nyesom Wike as governor of Rivers State by the Independent
\nNational Electoral Commission (INEC) is restored. The petition of the
\npetitioners is dismissed,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
On the issue of locus standi and processes of service raised before the
\nTribunal by the PDP and Wike, in which the ruling was later delivered by a
\nnewly constituted chairman of the Tribunal, the apex court held against
\nthe PDP, that in line with Section 294 (1) and (2) of the constitution,
\nthe Tribunal was proper in its procedure.<\/p>\n
On the issue of the use of card readers and evaluation and affirmation of
\ndocuments used during the conduct of the election, the court held that the
\nintroduction of the card readers over time has received commendations from
\nit, but maintained that the use of manual voter\u2019s register supersedes the
\ncard readers.<\/p>\n
The court also held that Section 49 (1) (2) of the Electoral Act was
\nextant in other to prove non-accreditation and non-voting, stating that
\nthe tribunal and appellate court were unduly swayed by directives from
\nINEC on card reader use.<\/p>\n
The court averred that Section 138 (1) of the Electoral Act is clear and
\nunambiguous, as regards INEC\u2019s directives on issuance of directives for
\nconduct of elections, stating that the issue of non-compliance in the
\ncircumstance of the matter is improper.<\/p>\n
It also averred that the respondent in the appeal (APC) failed to
\nsubstantiate its claims, in line with its proof of evidence, as to the
\nallegation of massive rigging and violence in 23 of the Local Government
\nAreas, when it was only able to substantiate its claims on four of the
\naffected areas.<\/p>\n
The INEC on April 11 and 12 conducted elections into the office of
\ngovernor, last year. Wike, who was sponsored by the PDP, was returned
\nelected, having scored the majority of lawful votes cast.Dakuku contested
\non the platform of the 2nd respondent, APC.<\/p>\n
with the return of Wike, Dakuku and APC filed a petition before the
\nTribunal on the following grounds:
\n(i) That the 2nd respondent (Wike) was not duly elected by majority or
\nhighest number of lawful votes cast at the election.
\n(ii) That the election of the 2nd respondent (Wike) was invalid and
\nunlawful by reason of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of
\nthe Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), manual for election officials 2015,
\nas well as the 1st respondent\u2019s 2015 general elections approved
\nguidelines and regulations.
\n(iii) The election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices.<\/p>\n
Justice Kekere-Ekun, after a perusal of Notice and Grounds of Appeal and
\nissues formulated by the parties, noted: \u201cI find the appellants issues apt
\nfor the determination of the appeal. Some of the issues will be considered
\ntogether where appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Issues One and Two concerned the competence of the ruling of the Tribunal
\ndelivered on September 9, last year and signed by Ambursa J., who did not
\nparticipate in the hearing of the application that gave rise to the said
\nruling.Issues one and two were ruled in the appellant\u2019s (Wike\u2019s) favour.<\/p>\n
Issues three and four concerned the competence of the issuance and service
\nof the election petition outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in
\npurported breach of Sections 96, 97, 98 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process
\nAct Cap. S.6 LFN 2004, and the effect of non-compliance with the stamp and
\nseal requirement, as prescribed by the Rules of Professional Conduct for
\nLegal Practitioners made pursuant to section 12 of the Legal Practitioners
\nAct Cap. L11 LFN 2004.<\/p>\n
They were ruled against the appellant (Wike).Issue Five, concerning the
\nlocus standi of the 1st and 2nd respondents to present the petition,
\nsubject matter of the appeal on ground of failure to comply with Section
\n21 of the Electoral Act, which requires 21-day notice to be given to INEC
\nbefore the conduction of primaries by a political party, was resolved
\nagainst the appellant.<\/p>\n
Issues Six and Seven concerned the evaluation of the documentary evidence
\nby the Tribunal and the affirmation of same by the court below.<\/p>\n
They were both resolved in favour of the appellant.Issue Eight, contended
\nby E.C. Ukala (SAN), that the ground of the petition, which included
\nnon-compliance with the manual for election officials last year and
\ngeneral elections approved guidelines and regulations was outside the
\npurview of Sections 138 (1) (b) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended),
\nwas resolved in the appellant\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n
Issue Nine raised the question as to whether failure to follow the manual
\nor guidelines has the effect of rendering the election void and whether
\nthere is a conflict between Section 49 and 52 (1) (b) of the Electoral
\nAct, on one hand and the Manual for Election Officials 2015 and the
\napproved guidelines and regulations made by INEC.<\/p>\n
The issue was resolved against the appellant.Issues 10 and 11 in respect
\nof the submission of senior counsel for the appellant that the lower court
\nerred in failing to apply the decisions of the court in Kakih vs PDP
\n(2014) 5 NWLR (pt.1430) 377 and Ucha vs Elechi (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317)
\n330 on the burden of proof of non-compliance with the Electoral Act,
\nnon-voting, misconduct and non-conduct of the election, was resolved in
\nthe appellant\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n
Justice Kekere-Ekun concluded as follows: \u201cNotwithstanding the resolution
\nof issues 3, 4, 5, and 9 against the appellant, I hold that the appellant
\nhas shown sufficient reason for the court to interfere with the concurrent
\nfindings of the Tribunal and the court below.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is for this reason that I allowed this appeal on the 27 of January,
\n2016.\u201d\u201cThe judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, delivered on
\n16\/12\/2015, which affirmed the judgment of the Rivers State Governorship
\nElection Tribunal, delivered on 24\/10\/2015, was accordingly set aside.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe petition of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was hereby dismissed and the
\nreturn of the appellant as the duly-elected Governor of Rivers State by
\nthe 3rd Respondent (INEC) restored. Parties shall bear the cost.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal had on December 16, 2015 affirmed the judgment of the
\nRivers Governorship Election Tribunal, which ruled that the election of
\nNyesom Wike was not valid.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal on October 24, last year nullified the election of Wike,
\nordering that a fresh election be conducted in the state.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":42042,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-exclusive"],"yoast_head":"\n