Legalpedia Citation: (2023-12) Legalpedia 00168 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Abuja

Fri Dec 22, 2023

Suit Number: CA/EP/SHA/KT/50/2023

CORAM

Balkisu Bello Aliyu Justice , Court of Appeal

Abba Bello Mohammed Justice, Court of Appeal

Asma’u Musa Mainoma Justice, Court of Appeal

PARTIES

1. MURTALA MOHAMMED KANKARA
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)

APPELLANTS

1. LAWAL ABDU IBRAHIM
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

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

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Petitioner was the candidate of the 2nd Petitioner in the election for Member representing Kankara State Constituency in the Katsina State House of Assembly which was conducted on the 18th March, 2023 and a re-run on the 15th April, 2023 by the 3rd Respondent. The 1st Respondent was the candidate of the 2nd Respondent in the election which was also contested by other candidates sponsored by their respective political parties. At the conclusion of the election, the 3rd Respondent declared the 1st and 2nd Respondent winners of the election and returned the 1st Respondent as elected member representing Kankara State Constituency in the Katsina State House of Assembly having scored the highest number of the votes cast. The Appellants came second in the election.

​The Appellants disagreed with the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as winner of the election claiming that the 1st Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election because he forged the WAEC certificate he submitted to INEC and that he was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election due to over-voting in polling units.

The Tribunal found the Petition lacking in merit and dismissed it. The Appellants were aggrieved with the judgment of the Tribunal and filed the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the Tribunal was correct in law when it held that the burden of proving allegation of forgery was not discharged?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CERTIFICATE – WHERE A PERSON RUNNING FOR ELECTION TO A HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PRESENTS A FORGED CERTIFICATE TO INEC

CERTIFICATE – WHERE A PERSON RUNNING FOR ELECTION TO A HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PRESENTS A FORGED CERTIFICATE TO INEC

Section 107(1)(i) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 as amended provides that:

No person shall be qualified for election to a House of Assembly if- he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.  – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

STANDARD OF PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF OF ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINAL NATURE MADE IN CIVIL MATTERS

…the allegations made by the Appellants in their petition are criminal in nature and regardless of whether the proceedings are election petition proceedings, they must establish the allegation beyond reasonable doubt as required by the provisions of Section 135 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as rightly argued by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. See APM VS. INEC & ORS (2021) LPELR-54296 (CA), per ONYEMENAM, JCA at pg. 67-68 paras. D holding that:

It is the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant herein that election petitions are civil proceedings and thus, every proof required therein is on preponderance of evidence or balance of probability. With deference to learned counsel, this is an erroneous conception. An allegation that a party presented forged certificates is firmly rooted in criminality, which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough to make such allegation. The party so alleging must go further to lead credible evidence to prove such allegation in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act… – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Evidence Act, 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT