PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. IBRAHIM T. EL-SUDI & ORS

CORAM

SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY

SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY

SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY

PARTIES

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPLICANT(S)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 4th Respondent was sponsored by the Appellant, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), while the 1st Respondent was also sponsored by the 2nd Respondent, All Progressive Congress(APC), to contest the election into the National Assembly representing Gashaka, Kurmi and Sardauna Federal Constituency. At the end of the election exercise, the 4th Respondent was declared winner by the 3rd Respondent, the Independent Electoral Commission. Dissatisfied with the declaration, the 1st and 2nd Respondent filed a petition at the National/State House of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Jalingo, Taraba State, on the ground that the election conducted in 19 polling units and in seven wards of Kurmi and Sardauna Local Government Areas within the Federal Constituency was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 and that the 4th Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election for Gashaka, Kurmi and Sardauna Federal Constituency in the National Assembly of the Federation. The Tribunal at the conclusion of hearing and consideration of counsel’s written addresses, held in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents thereby nullifying the election in the 19 polling units in Kurmi and Sardauna Local Government Areas on account of failure of accreditation of voters. Dissatisfied, with the judgement of the Court, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed.

ISSUES

{C}Ø {C}Whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to have entertained the Petition that was abandoned by the 1st and 2nd Respondents?{C}Ø {C}Whether the Petition as presented at the Tribunal is competent in view of the fact that the grounds in support of the Petition are inconsistent with the fact and reliefs sought and the aforesaid grounds are not in conformity with section 138(1) (b) and (c) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended? {C}Ø {C}Whether the Tribunal was right to have entertained and granted an application for the recertification of Exhibit 1-44 and 48 – 50 at the time it was presented or at all? {C}Ø {C}Whether Exhibit 1 – 44 and 48 – 50 were properly admitted, acted and relied upon by the Tribunal? {C}Ø {C}Whether the Tribunal was right to have relied on the testimonies of PW2 – PW19 who claimed to be registered voters but failed to produce their voters, card at the trial? {C}Ø {C}Whether the 1st 2nd Respondents proved non accreditation and allocation of votes in 19 polling units to justify the nullification of the election in 19 units in Kurmi and Sardauna Local Government Areas of Taraba State? {C}Ø {C}Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the witness of the 1st and 2nd Respondent to examine documents already tendered pursuant to paragraph 41(3) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended? {C}Ø {C}Were the allegations against the 19 Presiding Officers in this Petition criminal in nature? If yes, is the non-joinder of the 19 Presiding Officers in this petition fatal and renders the paragraphs of the Petition where the said allegations were made incompetent? {C}Ø {C}Whether the Tribunal failed in its duty to properly evaluate evidence presented before it by the parties and draw necessary inference therefrom??