Ahmed Abubakar & Ors V. Ibrahim Nagaba Zurmi & Anor (1998)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.
At the end of the Nationwide conducted elections into Local Government Area Councils of 15th day of March, 1997, the National Electoral Commission of Nigeria (NECON) declared the 1st and 2nd Petitioners, who contested the election on the platform of the 3rd Petitioner, as the duly elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Zurmi Local Government Council of Zamfara state.
The 1st and 2nd Petitioners were declared by NECON as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Zurmi Local Government Council of Zamfara State. The respondents were dissatisfied with the result and they Petitioned the Zamfara state Local Government Election Tribunal. At the end of hearing, the Election Tribunal nullified the election at Gotawa B8 polling Unit for irregularities. The Election Tribunal then declared the respondents as duly elected on the majority of lawful votes.
Aggrieved by that decision, the Petitioners appealed to the Zamfara state Election Appeal Tribunal on three grounds. The grounds read as follows:
“1. The Tribunal erred in Law and fact when it held that the 2nd Respondent was not qualified to contest the election as he did not reach the age of 35 years.
- The Tribunal erred in Law when it held that the 2nd Respondent did not posses the requisite educational qualifications that would enable him contest the election.
- The Tribunal erred in law when it cancelled the result of Gotawa B8 polling Unit.”
The Appeal Tribunal after considering the record of the Election Tribunal and submissions of counsel for the respective parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Election Tribunal. It is against this decision that the petitioners petitioned Government for a review of the Tribunals decisions.
In his brief filed before us, the Federal Attorney General formulated the following issues:
“1. Whether the Lower and Appeal Tribunals were right in holding that the 2nd Respondent/2nd Appellant was not qualified to contest the elections since he was below the age of 35 years.
- Whether the Lower and Appeal Tribunals were right when they held that the 2nd Respondent/2nd Appellant did not possess the requisite educational qualification that would qualify him to contest the election; and,
- Whether the Lower and Appeal Tribunals were right when they cancelled the results of Gotawa B8 Polling Unit and declared the Petitioners/Respondents as duly elected on a majority of Lawful Votes”.
Learned counsel for the petitioners Chief Olodo, adopted the issues formulated by the Attorney General’s Office. The sum total of the submission of the Attorney General on all the issues is that ample evidence was led that the 2nd petitioner did not attain the statutory age of 35 years at the time of the election and no evidence was tendered by the respondent in rebuttal. The 2nd petitioner, it was argued did not satisfy the minimum requirement of a Senior school Leaving Certificate or its equivalent within the meaning of Section 108 of Decree 7 of 1997. Submitted also is that there were evidence tendered that the irregularities at Gotawa B8 Polling Unit were never controverted. Other malpractices were so glaring as well. They were all a flagrant violation of the electoral process provided by Decree No.7 of 1997. We have been urged to affirm the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.
NOW, after having carefully studied the printed record before this court and the submissions of the Hon. Attorney General and Chief Olodo for the petitioners, I am satisfied with the Judgments of the lower Tribunals that ample evidence was led to establish that the 2nd petitioner did not attain the Senior Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent at the time of the election. Secondly, the election results from Gotawa B8 Polling Unit could not be said to be free from malpractices. The Election Tribunal was right in cancelling the results of that Polling Unit. Putting together the total results from all the Polling Units, apart from Gotawa B8 Polling Units, it was evident that the UNCP candidates i.e. the 1st and 2nd respondents had the majority of lawful Votes. The Provision of Section 95(1) & (2) States,
“1. Subject to subsection (2) of this section, if the Tribunal determines that a candidate returned as elected was not duly elected on any ground, the Tribunal shall nullify the election.
- If the Tribunal determines that a candidate returned as elected was not duly elected on the ground that he did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at the election, then the election Tribunal shall declare as elected the candidate who scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.”
In accordance with the above provision, the Election Tribunal declared 1st and 2nd respondents as duly elected Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively of Zurmi Local Government Council of Sokoto State. This was confirmed by the Appeal Tribunal. It is trite law that the Appeal Court does not ordinarily disturb concurrent findings of two lower courts. The findings of the two Tribunals below have not been shown to be perverse. See: Mbonu Vs. Nwoti (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt.206) 737; Lawal vs. Dawodu (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 270; Ezike Vs. Ezeugwu (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.236) 466. I am in agreement with the lower Tribunals decision and I hereby affirm same. Accordingly the petition is hereby dismissed. 1st and 2nd respondents election as the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Zurmi Local Government Council of Sokoto State is hereby affirmed.
Other Citations: (1998)LCN/0457(CA)
