Rivers Gov Tribunal ‘Induced By Hearsay,’ S’Court Rules

• Explains Its Decision
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.