CORAM
A.I. KATSINA-ALU
D. MUSDAPHER
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Lead Judgment)
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAHI MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA
PARTIES
RT. HON. ROTIMI CHUBUIKE AMAECHI APPELLANTS
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSIONCELESTINE OMEHIAPEOPLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
POLITICAL PARTY, SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES, CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 3rd respondent substituted the appellant who won the Governorship primaries of the Party in Rivers State, with another candidate who eventually won the election.
HELD
The court held that there were no cogent and verifiable reasons for the substitution of the appellant by the 3rd respondent and declared him the Governor of the state.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error in allowing fresh evidence on appeal when no exceptional circumstances were shown to warrant such admission. 2. Whether having regard to the undertaking before the court, the court below ought not have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Ugwu v. Ararume (supra)? 3. Whether there exists cogent and verifiable reasons to warrant the substitution of the appellant’s name with that of any other person in breach of Section 34 of the Electoral Act, 2006 and if not whether the purported substitution of the appellant’s name is not null and void. 4. Whether INEC (1st Respondent) can rely on extraneous facts or any facts not presented by a political party seeking substitution to verify reasons given seeking substitution. 5. Whether there was in existence an indictment of the Appellant for same to be used as a basis to verify the reasons of error given by the 3rd respondent for seeking the substitution of the Appellant’s name. 6. Whether having regard to the concept of LIS PENDENS and the fact that at the material time of the election, appellant being the only lawful candidate of the PDP, he ought not to be declared the winner of 14th April, 2007 gubernatorial elections in Rivers State. 7. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct when it held that the appeal in issue did not abate upon the 2nd respondent being sworn in as the Governor of Rivers State whereupon he acquires constitutional immunity pursuant to Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution. 8. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law when after finding that the entire gamut of appellant’s dispute arose from nomination and sponsorship (matter within the domestic sphere of the 3rd respondent) it did not rule the entire dispute non-justiciable. 9. Whether the proceedings were void ab initio on the basis that evidence viva voce was not taken in a suit commenced by writs of summons/Statement of claim in respect of reliefs that were all declaratory in nature?” 10. Whether the court below was right in law to hold that the appeal before it was an election related matter and having so held went further to hold that the second respondent was not entitled to enjoy the benefits of the immunity conferred on him by virtue of Section 308 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 having taken the oath of office and the oath of allegiance as the Governor of Rivers State and placing reliance on the cases of A.D. v. Fayose and Obih v. Mbakwe to arrive at this conclusion
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
1. Ugwu & Anor. v. Araraume & Anor. [2007] 6 S.C. (Part 1) 88|2. Ojukwu v. Government of Lagos StateOkenwa v. Mil. Governor, Imo State (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 455) 394|3. Okonkwo v. Ngige (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 191, (2007) 12 (Pt.2) SCM, 507|4. Okoro v. Egbuaoh (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 1, (2006) 10-11 SCM, 364|5. Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 72
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The 1999 Constitution|2. The Electoral Act 2006|