Chief Obafemi Awolowo V. Alhaji Shehu Shagari & Ors (1979)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.

In an election petition presented to the Presidential Election Tribunal in Lagos following the declaration by one F.L.O. Menkiti, the returning Officer at the Presidential Election (now third respondent), that Alhaji Shehu Shagari had been duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Chief Obafemi Awolowo (now appellant) contended as follows:-

1. That in the election held on the 11th day of August, 1979, Chief (Dr.) Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo,Alhaji Aminu Kano, Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim and Alhaji Shehu Shagari were candidates;

2. that the said Mr. F.L.O. Menkiti,duly returned Alhaji Shehu Shagari as the duly elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;

3. that the said Alhjaji Shehu Shagari was at the time of the election not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes at the election as he has not satisfied Section 34 A subsection 1(c) (ii) of the Electoral Decree, 1977, which had been inserted by Section 7 of the Electoral (Amendment) Decree, 1978;

4. that although the said Alhaji Shehu Shagari received 5, 688, 857 votes at the said election, he had less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation; and

5. that the election of the said Alhaji Shehu Shagari was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of Part II of the Electoral Decree, 1977, which include the provisions of Section 34 A(1) (c) (ii) of the said Decree.

The petitioner thereupon prayed –

(i) that the Tribunal should determine that the said Alhaji Shehu Shagari (who we shall hereinafter refer to as the 1st respondent) was not duly elected or returned and that his election or return was void; and

(ii) that Alhaji Ahmadu Kurfi, the Chief Electoral officer of the Federation and Mr. F.L.O Menkiti, the Returning Officer at the Presidential Election (hereinafter referred to respectively as the 2nd and 3rd respondents), be ordered to arrange for an election to be held in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 A(3) of the Electoral(Amendment) Decree (Decree No. 32 of 1979).

In their respective replies to the petition,the lst, 2nd and 3rd respondents denied all the averments in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the petition and contended that the 1st respondent was duly returned by a majority of lawful votes totalling 5, 688, 857. The 1st respondent also contended:-

(a) that the election was conducted in actual compliance, or alternatively, in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Part II of the Electoral Decree 1977, as amended, and that the non-compliance (which the 1st respondent denies) does not affect the result of the election;

(b) that, at the said election, he:

(i) obtained the highest votes cast;and