Legalpedia Citation: (2023-05) Legalpedia 26471 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Tue May 9, 2023

Suit Number: SC.CV/508/2023

CORAM

John Inyang Okoro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

1. ADEGBOYEGA ISIAKA OYETOLA
2. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELANT(S)

APPELLANTS

1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
2. ADELEKE ADEMOLA JACKSON NURUDEEN
3. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) RESPONDENT(S)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In the petition, the grounds were on the allegation of facts of non-compliance with the Electoral Act and INEC Regulations, Guidelines and Manuals in election in 744 polling units across 10 Local Government Area of Osun State. They claimed that the elections in the 744 polling units in 10 Local Government Areas were characterized by widespread non-use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) for accreditation of voters, and that the results in the Form EC8A for each unit show that the number of votes cast exceed the number of accredited voters recorded in the BVAS. They further claimed that the votes credited to the 1st appellant and 2nd respondent in the 744 polling units are vitiated and void for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act on accreditation and verification of voters in the elections and that upon deduction of the unlawful votes in the 744 polling units, it is the 1st petitioner (Appellant) and not the 2nd respondent who scored majority of the votes cast in the election and satisfied the requirements for election as Governor of Osun State and ought to have been so declared.

The Tribunal passed judgment in favor of the Appellant but the Court of Appeal set aside the said judgment and restored the election of the 2nd respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove their petition against the 2nd respondent’s election as Governor of Osun State. The Appellants were aggrieved by the decision hence the instant appeal.

 

HELD

Appeal dismissed

Cross Appeal struck out

 

ISSUES

Ø Whether on a proper consideration of the materials in the record and relevant applicable decisions of the Supreme Court, the lower Court was right when it held that the Tribunal did not determine on the merit, the preliminary objection raised by the 2nd respondent against the petition?

Ø Whether in the light of the pleadings, the evidence led and the applicable law, the lower Court was not wrong in the view it took of Exhibit 2R. RW4, and its resolution of the issue regarding the non-qualification of the 2nd respondent to contest the Osun State Governorship election held on 16th July, 2022?

Ø Whether the lower Court was not wrong in its consideration and determination of the appeal of the 2nd respondent when it raised the question whether the appellants led admissible evidence in support of their pleadings which question was not warranted by the grounds of appeal of the 2nd respondent to the lower Court?

Ø Whether on a proper consideration of the pleadings and the evidence in the records, Section 137 and paragraph 46(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the judgment of the trial Tribunal, the lower Court was not wrong in holding that the appellants did not prove their petition?

Ø Whether in the light of the grounds of appeal of the 2nd respondent to the lower Court, the Court was not wrong when it held that the evidence of PW1 was inadmissible on the ground that he did not proffer proof of his qualifications before the lower Tribunal and did not deny his membership of APC which made him a person interested in the petition?

Ø Whether delivery of two conflicting decisions by the same panel of the lower Court on the same issue in the three appeals which are now on appeal before the Supreme Court should not render the judgments in the three appeals unreliable to merit their setting aside?

Ø Whether in the determination of an appeal, it is open to the lower Court as it did in arriving at its decision on the appeal of the 2nd respondent, to rely on its own private knowledge of facts concerning the BVAS machine, not borne out by the evidence in the record of appeal which bind the Court and the parties?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

EVIDENCE – THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO PROVE NON-ACCREDITATION, IMPROPER ACCREDITATION AND OVER-VOTING

The evidence required to prove non-accreditation, improper accreditation, and over-voting under the Electoral Act 2022 are the BVAS, the Register of Voters and the Polling Unit result in INEC Form EC8A by virtue of S.47(1)(2) and 51(2) of the Electoral Act 2022, Regulations 14, 18, 19(b)(i-iv), (e)(i-iii) and 48(a) of the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

BVAS MACHINE – DUTY OF THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE THE BVAS MACHINE IN EVIDENCE

The record in the BVAS machine for each polling unit is the direct and primary record of the number of voters accredited in that polling unit on the election day in the process of the election. It is not in dispute that the disputed polling units results were collated in their respective wards by their Ward Collation Officers. By virtue of Regulation 48(a) of INEC Regulations and Guidelines (supra), a presumption arises from the collation of the polling units results that the number of accredited voters recorded in the result in Form EC8A agrees with the record of accredited voters in the BVAS. The petitioners cannot rebut this presumption without producing the BVAS machines in evidence. Regulation 48(a) INEC Regulations and Guidelines (supra) states what the number of accredited voters in the result should agree with as “the number recorded in the BVAS”. So it is the number of accredited voters recorded in the BVAS that the number of accredited voters recorded in the result in Form EC8A must be compared with or verified from to determine if there was over-voting in a polling unit. For practical purposes and for ease of reference an original or certified true copy of an INEC certificate of the record of number of accredited voters of the BVAS for each polling unit can be produced from an examination of the record of the BVAS machines and tendered in evidence along with the BVAS machines. In any case, Regulation 48(a) having expressly and specifically mentioned the election documents or instrument with which the number of accredited voters recorded in Form EC8A is to agree with or to be compared with, only that document and no other shall be evidence for that purpose. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

 

INEC DATA-BASE – INEC DATA-BASE/BACK-END SERVER DIFFERENTIATED FROM BVAS

Exhibit BVR, the report of the examination of the content of the INEC database or back-end server containing the number of accredited voters and number of votes cast transmitted by the BVAS for each polling unit to the database or back-end server, does not qualify as the BVAS provided for in Regulation 48(a), and the number recorded therein as extracted from the INEC database is not the “number recorded in the BVAS” as provided in Regulation 48(a). There is no part of the Electoral Act or the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022 that makes the INEC database or back-end server a part of the accreditation process or record of accredited voters.

The INEC database is a post-election record created by Section 62 of the Electoral Act 2022 and named therein as the National Election Register of Election Results for the purpose of keeping reliable and verifiable records of past election results polling unit by polling unit. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

PRESIDING OFFICER – DUTY OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO TRANSMIT OR UPLOAD RESULTS TO THE COLLATION SYSTEM AND IREV PORTAL – WHETHER INEC DATA BASE IS RELEVANT IN DETERMINING NON-ACCREDITATION OR OVER-VOTING

There is no part of the Electoral Act or the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022 that requires the Presiding Officer of the election in a Polling unit to transmit the particulars or number of accredited voters recorded by the BVAS to the INEC database or anywhere. This is obvious from all the provisions reproduced above.

Equally, there is no part of the Electoral Act and INEC Regulations and Guidelines that require that the election result of a polling unit should, on the spot during the poll, be transmitted to the INEC National Election Register or database. Rather, the Regulations provide for the BVAS to be used to scan the completed result in Form EC8A and transmit or upload the scanned copy of the polling unit result to the Collation System and INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV).

Regulation 38 of the Regulation reads thusly: “38. On completion of all the Polling Unit voting and results procedures, the Presiding Officer shall: (i) Electronically transmit or transfer the result of the Polling Unit, direct to the collation system as prescribed by the Commission. (ii) Use the BVAS to upload a scanned copy of the EC8A to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV), as prescribed by the Commission. (iii) Take the BVAS and the original copy of each of the forms in tamper-evident envelope to the Registration Area/Ward Collation Officer, in the company of Security Agents. The Polling Agents may accompany the Presiding Officer to the RA/Ward Collation Centre.”

As their names depict, the Collation System and the INEC Result Viewing Portal are part of the election process and play particular roles in that process. The Collation System is made up of the centres where results are collated at various stages of the election. So the polling units results transmitted to the collation system provide the relevant collation officer with the means to verify a polling unit result as the need arises for the purpose of collation. The results transmitted to the Result Viewing Portal are to give the public at large the opportunity to view the polling unit results on the election day. It is clear from the provisions of Regulation 38(i) and (ii) that the Collation System and Result Viewing Portal are different from the National Electronic Register of Election Results. The Collation System and Result Viewing Portal are operational during the election as part of the process, while the National Electronic Register of Election Results is a post-election record and is not part of the election process.

As I have held herein, there is no part of the Electoral Act requiring the Presiding Officer to transmit the accredited voters in a polling unit or the polling unit result during the election to the INEC database as part of the election process.

As stated in Section 62(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, “After the recording and announcement of the result, the presiding officer shall deliver same along with election materials under security and accompanied by the candidates or their polling agents, where available, to such person as may be prescribed by the Commission. This is to enable the Commission to compile, maintain, and update, on a continuous basis, a register of election results.” This intention is clear from Subsection (2) of Section 62, which provides that “the Commission shall compile, maintain, and update, on a continuous basis, a register of election results to be known as the National Electronic Register of Election Results which shall be a distinct database or repository of polling unit by polling unit results, including collated election results, of each election conducted by the Commission in the Federation, and the Register of Election Results shall be kept in electronic format by the Commission at its national headquarters.”

In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the INEC database or National Electronic Register of Election Results is not relevant evidence in the determination of whether there was non-accreditation or overvoting or not in an election in a polling unit and cannot be relied on to prove overvoting. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

INEC DATA-BASE – WHETHER THE INEC DATA BASE CAN BE USED TO DISPUTE THE NUMBER OF ACCREDITED VOTERS

The database can only contain what is transmitted to it from the BVAS at a particular time and not what the BVAS recorded at that time. So, by the appellant’s own showing, it cannot be a complete and accurate record of those numbers and therefore cannot be relied on to dispute the number of accredited voters recorded in the Form EC8A on the day of the poll. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

 

REGISTER OF VOTERS – THE RELEVANCE OF THE REGISTER OF VOTERS IN EVIDENCE

It is clear from the provisions of S.47(1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2022 and Regulations 14(a) and (b), 18(a) and (b), 19(b) and (e) that the Register of voters for each polling unit is relevant evidence to prove the alleged non-accreditations of voters in the 744 polling units on the election day. It is worth stating that in the event of a conflict between the record of accredited voters in the BVAS machine and ticked names in the Register of voters due to human errors in the ticking of the names in the Register of voters, the BVAS Record shall prevail. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

REPORT – WHEN THE MAKER OF A REPORT IS INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER

In Anyaebosi V V.R.T, Briscoe (Nig) Ltd (Supra), this Court held that the likelihood that the maker of a report is tainted by the incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts, renders him a person interested. The listing of the Expert Analysis Report in the petition among the documents to be relied on to prove the petition show it was made in anticipation or contemplation of the petition to be filed. The report having been made by PW1 as a person interested in the subject matter of the report when the petition was anticipated to establish that the election result was invalid is not admissible evidence by virtue of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) which provides as follows:-

“Nothing in this Section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.” – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

HEARSAY EVIDENCE – MEANING OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE

The Court cannot adopt the opinion of a person concerning a documentary evidence before it without itself considering that evidence and drawing its own inferences from it. Such opinion on the content of a document (Form EC8A) not made by the person expressing it (PW1) is hearsay and not admissible. S.37 of the Evidence Act 2011 defines “Hearsay” to mean a statement “(a) oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding; or (b) contained or recorded in a book, document or any record, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it.” In any case S.67 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that “the opinion of any person as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue or relevant fact in issue is inadmissible except as provided in Sections 68 – 76 of this Act. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

BURDEN OF PROOF – WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN ELECTION MATTERS AND WHEN IT SHIFTS

By virtue of S. 131 and S.133 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, the appellants had the primary legal burden to prove the existence of the facts asserted by them in grounds 2 and 3 of their petition. By virtue of S. 133(2) of the Evidence Act 2011, it is only when the appellants discharge that burden that the evidential burden would shift to the respondents to adduce evidence to disprove the case made by the appellants. It is obvious that the appellants’ case collapsed at the conclusion of their evidence as their pleadings and evidence made no case that required the respondents to disprove by evidence and so no evidential burden shifted to the respondents. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

APPEAL – WHEN A DECISION IS NOT APPEALED

…there is no ground of this appeal against the specific finding of the Court of Appeal that Exhibit 2R.RW4 (Judgment of Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/A/362/2019) tendered in the Tribunal is a certified true copy. By not appealing against it, the appellants accepted it as correct, conclusive and binding upon them and therefore cannot argue against the finding. See Iyoho v. Effiong (2007) 4 SC (Pt.iii) 90, SPDC Nig Ltd & Anor V X.M Federal Ltd & Anor (2006) 7 SC (Pt.iii) 27 and Dabup v. Kolo (1993) 12 SCNJ 1. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

JUDGMENT – TYPES OF JUDGMENTS AND THEIR MEANINGS

In Anyaebosi V V.R.T, Briscoe (Nig) Ltd (Supra), this Court held that the likelihood that the maker of a report is tainted by the incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts, renders him a person interested. The listing of the Expert Analysis Report in the petition among the documents to be relied on to prove the petition show it was made in anticipation or contemplation of the petition to be filed. The report having been made by PW1 as a person interested in the subject matter of the report when the petition was anticipated to establish that the election result was invalid is not admissible evidence by virtue of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) which provides as follows:-

“Nothing in this Section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.” – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

EVIDENCE – THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED WHEN THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS OF FORGERY OF CERTIFICATES

No evidence was adduced to establish the allegations of forgery of Diploma Certificate of Penn Foster High School and the Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice from Atlanta Metropolitan State College beyond the hearsay testimonies of PW1 and PW2. There is no evidence that the institutions that awarded the 2nd respondent those educational qualifications denied awarding him those qualifications and issuing the certificates. As it is, without the awarding institutions disclaiming them, their authenticity and validity remain intact. This Court in Dantiye V APC & Ors (SC/CV/627/2020) delivered on 30-10-2020 held per Augie JSC thusly – “Since this matter revolves around the WAEC results and alleged false information, the only way the facts in issue can be resolved is by evidence from WAEC to the effect that the 2nd defendant is not the owner of the result in dispute and that the result and certificates did not emanate from WAEC to the 2nd defendant in person. The plaintiff in proving his case failed to write to or visit the West African Examination Council to ascertain the true state of things but relied on mere assumptions and speculations. The plaintiff has the burden to establish by credible and cogent evidence that the result does not belong to the 2nd defendant. The burden of proof … rest squarely on the plaintiff who is alleging false representation … It is the duty of the Court to consider and act only on credible evidence and not on speculations or unfounded assumptions.”

In APC V Ebeleke & Ors (judgment in SC/CV/182/2021 of 16-4-2021) following its decision in Dantiye V APC restated the law thusly – “The 1st respondent did not elicit any evidence from WAEC stating that it did not issue those results or that the 2nd respondent did not sit for the said examination and did not obtain the grades in the subjects listed therein. The 1st respondent did not elicit evidence from Uboma Secondary School, Ikperejehe Etiti stating that the signature on Exhibit A28 is not that of its principal or that it did not issue Exhibit A28 or that the 2nd respondent did not sit for the said examination in that school or that the content of Exhibit A28 are false in any respect. Without any of the above evidence, there is no evidential basis for the findings that the results are contradictory, not authentic and false because of the differences in them. See Dantiye V APC & Ors (supra), Maihaja v Gaidam (2017) LPELR-42474, Abubakar V INEC (2020) 12 NWLR (Pt.1737) 110, Dankwambo v Abubakar & Ors (2015) LPELR-25716(SC) and Agi V PDP & Ors (2016) LPELR-42578(SC).”

This Court in APC & Anor V Obaseki & Ors (judgment in SC/CV/376/2021 of 28-5-2021) also held that – “The basic evidence required to prove that the University degree certificate attached to INEC Form EC9 is forged is a disclaimer from the University of Ibadan that is said to have issued the certificate. The evidence required to prove that the A/Level WAEC Certificate attached to Form EC9 is forged is a disclaimer from WAEC that conducted the examination and issued the result and certificate. See the restatement of this law by this Court in Maihaja v. Gaidam (2017) LPELR-42474 (SC) and Mohammed V Wammako (2018) All FWLR (Pt.937) 1608 at 1630. It is curious that the appellants did not produce evidence of any official disclaimer from the University of Ibadan of the degree certificate attached to the Form EC9 or any official disclaimer of the A Level WAEC Certificate by WAEC. Without evidence from the institution or body that is purported to have issued any certificate or other document stating that it did not issue the certificate or document or that any part of the certificate or document is not made by it, it would be idle and useless to contend that it is forged.” See Ibezim V Elebeke (Judgment in SC/CV/2021 of 16-4-2021). – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

COURTS/TRIBUNALS – CONDUCTS OF COURTS AND TRIBUNALS WHERE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ARE RAISED – EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF FAIR HEARING

It is glaring that the Tribunal lumped several preliminary objections together, without considering each of them and the issues raised in each, dismissed them. The exact text of its decision reads thusly – “the several preliminary objections to the competence of the 1st petitioner as a candidate in the election and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to determine the said petition are hereby dismissed.” This amounts to sweeping aside the objections without hearing or determining them. The dismissal of the objections did not proceed from the determination of any of the objections. It violates the fair trial of the objections and the entire petition and the right of the parties to fair hearing. This feature renders Tribunal’s judgment a nullity. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

 

TRIBUNALS – WHEN TRIBUNALS OR COURTS FAIL TO CONSIDER APPLICATIONS

By Section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended), where a preliminary objection or any other interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or Court in any pre-election matter or on the competence of the petition itself is raised by a party, the Tribunal or Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment. The Tribunal which heard the petition giving birth to this appeal applied the above Constitutional provision when it held on page 11,897 of Vol. 16 of the record that: “As earlier stated, learned counsel for the parties moved their various applications, for which ruling thereon would be delivered alongside the judgment in the petition.”

Alas, as was rightly pointed out by the Court below, the Tribunal in delivering its judgment glossed over the said applications and proceeded to deliver its final judgment. It is quite clear that in so doing, the tribunal failed woefully to give a full and dispassionate consideration and resolution to the said motions. But the issues raised in the said motions were fundamental and crucial to the competency of the entire petition.

I agree with the Court below that although every Judge has his style of judgment writing, in every ruling or judgment, the Court must demonstrate a full and dispassionate consideration of the issues properly raised and heard irrespective of how stupid the Court may think the issues are. Doubtless to say that the Tribunal’s failure to consider those applications amounted to a denial of fair hearing to the applicants in the motions and the effect of a denial of fair hearing in any judicial proceedings renders the said proceedings a nullity. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

JUDGMENT – DUTY OF TRIBUNALS OR COURTS WHEN THEIR ATTENTION IS BROUGHT TO A JUDGMENT OF A SUPERIOR COURT

The 2nd Respondent’s counsel, having acquitted himself of his duty to the Tribunal by drawing its attention to the said judgment, it behooved the Tribunal not only to take judicial notice of the judgment but also to abide by the pronouncements contained therein. I agree wholly with the Court below that the issue transcends beyond the admissibility of the judgment in Exhibit 2R.RW4 but its binding force on the Tribunal on the basis of stare decisis. See PDP vs Oranezi & Ors (2017) LPELR-43471(SC). It is trite law that the Courts are enjoined to take judicial notice of the judgments of the superior Courts in this country. See Section 122(2)(m) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Idris v ANPP (2000) 8 NWLR (pt. 1088) 1 at 155. Even if the Tribunal had any reason to reject the judgment contained in Exhibits 2R.RW4, how about the fact that the judgment was reported since 2019 in (2019) LPELR – 48729 (CA)? All the arguments by the Appellants in support of the action of the Tribunal on this issue did not fly at all. The attention of the Tribunal, having been drawn to the said judgments, their Lordships were entitled to and in fact ought to have taken judicial notice of the judgment and not reject the exhibit and nothing more. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

OVER-VOTING – DOCUMENTS TO PROVE OVER-VOTING IN AN ELECTION

The Electoral Act, 2022 has not abolished the Voters Register as the foundation for elections in this country. It is the voters register which contains the number of registered voters across the country.

Whenever it is alleged that there was over voting in an election, it is my view that the documents needed to prove overvoting are the voters register to show the number of registered voters, the BVAS to show the number of accredited voters, and the Forms EC8AS to show the number of votes cast at the polling unit. These three documents will show exactly what transpired at the polling units. Failure to tender these documents would be fatal to any effort to prove over-voting because how would you prove over-voting when you do not know the number of registered voters in the unit even where the BVAS has shown the number accredited. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

OVER-VOTING – MEANING OF OVER-VOTING

Over-voting is explained in Section 51(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and Clause 40 of Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022. Both provisions are set out hereunder:

Section 51(2) of the Electoral Act:

“Where the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of accredited voters in that polling unit, the presiding officer shall cancel the result of the election in that polling unit.”

Clause 40 of Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections:

“Where the total number of votes cast at a Polling Unit exceeds the number of accredited voters at the Polling Unit, the result of the election for that Polling Unit shall be declared null and void, and a report in that regard shall be made to the Collation Officer.”

Over-voting would therefore have taken place in a polling unit when the number of votes cast in that polling unit exceeds the number of accredited voters. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

HEARSAY – WHEN THE EVIDENCE GIVEN IS HEARSAY

From the foregoing, not only is the evidence of PW2 hearsay, he also testified that a BVAS machine was deployed in the polling unit where he voted. In other words, the non-compliance alleged by the witness was only said to have occurred in places where he was not present and he was only told the same by persons who were not called as witnesses before the Tribunal. It is elementary that the evidence amounts to hearsay, which is not admissible. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

ORAL EVIDENCE – WHEN PARTIES BECOME DUTY BOUND TO CALL WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO NON-COMPLIANCE

The said Section 137 provides thus:

“It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.”

The above provision is drafted in simple, clear, and unambiguous words. The duty of this Court is therefore to apply a literal interpretation thereto by giving the words their natural, literal, and ordinary meanings, devoid of any embellishment. See KASSIM V. ADESEMOWO (2021) 18 NWLR (PT. 1807) 67, AGUMA V. A.P.C. (2021) 14 NWLR (PT. 1796) 351, F.B.N. PLC V. MAIWADA (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1348) 444, MIL. ADM., BENUE STATE V. ULEGEDE (2001) 17 NWLR (PT. 741) 194.

It is indubitable that Section 137 of the Electoral Act only applies where the non-compliance alleged is manifest from the originals or certified true copies of documents relied on. In the instant case, neither Exhibit BVR nor any other document relied on by the Appellants remotely disclosed non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. Hence, the section cannot be of any assistance to them. In the circumstance, they still had a duty to call witnesses who witnessed the alleged acts of non-compliance to testify. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

REGISTER OF VOTERS – RELEVANCE OF REGISTER OF VOTERS

Let me quickly point out that under our electoral laws, the Register of Voters is still relevant in conducting accreditation of voters and proving allegations of non-accreditation of voters. See Clause 19(b) of the Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

JUDGMENT – BASIC COMPONENTS THAT MUST NOT BE MISSING FROM A JUDGMENT

Judgment writing is not restrictive in the sense that there is no fixed style to be adopted by a Judge. In writing a judgment, a Judge is at liberty to adopt any mode or style that suits him or that he considers appropriate. The style adopted is solely up to the Judge and cannot be dictated by the parties, counsel, or anyone else. See NWOKORO & ORS V. ASHUE (2023) LPELR – 59744 (SC), ANDREW V. I.N.E.C. (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1625) 507, AJIBOYE V. FRN (2018) LPELR – 44468 (SC), OGBORU & ANOR V. UDUAGHAN & ORS (2012) LPELR 8287 (SC), GARUBA V. YAHAYA (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1021) 390, USIOBAIFO V. USIOBAIFO (2005) 3 NWLR (PT. 913) 665, OGBA & ORS V. ONWUZO & ANOR (2005) LPELR – 2272 (SC).

That said, irrespective of the style adopted by a Judge, there are some basic components that must not be missing from a judgment, ruling, or decision. In PDP V. OKOROCHA & ORS (2012) LPELR – 7832 (SC), this Court elucidated on those components thus:

“A complete judgment must set out the nature of the action before the Court, the issue in controversy, review the cases for the parties, consider the relevant laws raised and applicable, make specific findings of fact and conclusion and give reasons for arriving at the decision. A judgment and the reasons for same go together. There is no valid judgment without reasons for same.” (underlining mine for emphasis)

See also OYEDELE V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 47576 (SC), MBANEFO V. MOLOKWU & ORS (2014) LPELR – 22257 (SC), ISHOLA V. FOLORUNSHO (2010) 13 NWLR (PT. 1210) 169.

Although the complaint of the 2nd Respondent before the Court below bordered on the consideration or otherwise of the merit of his preliminary objection with the ruling incorporated in the judgment, the trial Tribunal nevertheless ought to have summarized the arguments canvassed by the parties in support of and against the preliminary objection and more importantly, demonstrate a dispassionate consideration of same before arriving at its decision. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

APPLICATIONS – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CONSIDER APPLICATIONS

Certainly, the failure of the learned members of the Tribunal to consider the Respondents’ applications constituted a breach and violation of their constitutionally entrenched right to fair hearing. See AGHEDO V. ADENOMO (2018) 13 NWLR (PT. 1636) 264, GARBA V. MOHAMMED (2016) 16 NWLR (PT. 1537) 114, TANKO V. U.B.A. PLC (2010) 17 NWLR (PT. 1221) 80. For a Court or Tribunal to casually gloss over applications regarding an issue as important as a challenge to its jurisdiction is reprehensible.

On account of the breach of the Respondents’ right to fair hearing, the inevitable consequence is that the entirety of the proceedings before the trial Tribunal are rendered null and void and it is immaterial that the same decision would have been reached if the right to fair hearing of the party complaining was not breached. See GIDIYA V. SANUSI (2023) 5 NWLR (PT. 1876) 71, UGO-NGADI V. F.R.N. (2018) 8 NWLR (PT. 1620) 29, OMONIYI V. ALABI (2015) 6 NWLR (PT. 1456) 572. This is because when breach of a party’s right to fair hearing is alleged, it is the process leading to the Court’s decision rather than the decision itself that is to be considered. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

OVER-VOTING – NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS TO ESTABLISH OVER-VOTING – VOTERS REGISTER

To establish over-voting, I must state that the Electoral Act has not abolished the voters register; the voters register still constitutes an integral part of necessary requirements to establish over-voting. The candidate alleging over-voting must tender the voters register to show the number of registered voters. He must also tender the BVAS to show the number of accredited voters for the election and forms EC8A to show the number of actual votes cast at the election at every polling unit. Any failure to tender these as exhibits would render the case of the person alleging over-voting fickle, fragile, barren, and therefore totally unreliable. – Per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Electoral Act, 2022
3. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Regulations, Guidelines and Manuals.
4. Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT