Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim V. Alhaji Shehu Shagari & Ors (1983)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

The petitioner/appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court and thereby dismissing his own appeal.

The petitioner in his petition set out various grounds of malpractices and corruption in the conduct of the presidential election. He also complained of alterations, amendments and obliterations made in at least 15 States’ election results. Unfortunately, the evidence he called in support, especially that of the 2nd, 15th and 16th witnesses disproved all these allegations.

Their evidence was believed by the trial court and confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal. Of the other witnesses called by the petitioner, they were regarded as unreliable and therefore disbelieved by the trial court and again confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Faced with these concurrent findings, the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to urge any ground, legal or otherwise, why this Court should disturb the concurrent findings of fact.

Although evidence was called by the petitioner, that is, that of the 15th witness, who is the Chairman of FEDECO, and who said that the election was free and fair, and, that he scrupulously checked the returns and found them correct, the Federal High Court based its judgment on section 123 of the Electoral Act, that is, substantial compliance with electoral provisions.

The learned Senior Advocate for the first respondent and the Attorney General of the Federation for the second respondent have drawn our attention to all the above observations. It may be pointed out, as the learned Attorney-General has drawn our attention to section 164, subsection (1) of the Electoral Act 1982, the word “return” means “the declaration of the result of the election in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this Act and includes a certificate of return in Form EC.8 in the Schedule of this Act”, which is exhibit B in this appeal. No complaint has been established against. There does not appear to be any substance or merit in all the grounds of appeal argued on behalf of the petitioner. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal is affirmed. Costs of N300 are hereby awarded to each respondent against the petitioner.

IRIKEFE, J.S.C. The appellant brought an election petition under the Electoral Act, 1982 against the respondents herein challenging the return of the first respondent in the presidential election held on 6th August, 1983 and seeking the nullification of the said return-and thus, the election of the said first respondent.

Two parties, namely (a) the Federal Electoral Commission and (b) the Inspector General of Police were made parties to the petition initially, but were later dismissed from the petition as having been improperly joined upon objection taken by counsel to the first and second respondents.

The petitioner/appellant in his amended petition at paragraph 10 thereof averred as follows:

“And your petitioner says that the presidential election held on the 6th August, 1983 in all the States of the Federation mentioned in paragraph 3 (9) above were grossly irregularly and improperly conducted which facts were revealed to me by several of the State Chairman and Gubernatorial candidates of the said G.N.P.P. and confirmed to your petitioner by the field agents based on the following categories of malpractices perpetrated by the third respondent in collusion with the fourth respondent and/or their agents: (a) that elections in the said States were conducted without the voters’ list (b) that people who were not registered were given the chance to vote whereas in some places of the aforementioned eight States under-aged children with fake voters’ cards were allowed to vote (c) that agents of the third respondent refused to supply sufficient number of copies of form EC8 to all polling stations in Kaduna and Niger States and to several polling stations in the other seven States (d) that the officials of the third respondent in collusion with agents of the fourth respondent refused to allow majority of polling agents appointed by me to represent me at polling booths in Niger, Kano, Kaduna, Plateau, Rivers, Borno and Gongola States”.

The above allegations, grave as they undoubtedly are, are such as may be made to question an election under section 122 (1) (b) of the Electoral Act, 1982. It reads

“that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or noncompliance with the provisions of Part II of this Act.”

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Fola Akinrinsola, admitted in the course of argument before us that his case rested on electoral malpractices and non-compliance with the provisions of Part II of the Electoral Act, which should result in the nullification of the election. The return in the case is exhibit B and the amended return which dealt with results from Gongola State wherein the votes scored by the presidential runner-up was enhanced is exhibit B 1. This enhancement or revision, which improved slightly on the performance of the appellant as I shall show presently, is relied upon as unauthorised interference to be treated as an electoral malpractice carrying with it the penalty of nullification.