Independent National Electoral Commission (Inec) & Anor V. Umana Okon Umana & Ors (2016)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

The facts of this appeal and those of SC 1/2016, just disposed of now, and indeed, of the other appeals [SC.2/2016; SC.3/2016; SC.6/2016 and SC.7/2016], arose from the events of the election of April 11, 2015. As such, it would not serve any useful purpose restating the same set of facts again in this appeal. I, therefore, adopt the factual narrative, already set out in SC.1/2016.

The appellant formulated three issues which revolve around exhibit 317, the Card Reader Report and proof of acts of non-compliance with the Provisions of the Electoral Act: issues which have been elaborately dealt with in SC.1/2016. I, accordingly, adopt my views and conclusion in the said judgment as my reasons and conclusion in this appeal.

In all, I adopt the reasons for the judgments in SC.1/2016 and SC.3/2016; SC.2/2016 as my reasons for allowing the instant appeal. Appeal allowed. Parties are to bear their costs.

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C.: This appeal arose from the Judgment of the Akwa Ibom State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal delivered on 21st October, 2015, which nullified the

Governorship election on 11th April, 2015 in 18 out of the 31 Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, this judgment of the Election Tribunal was set aside by the Court of Appeal Division and replace the Judgment of the Tribunal with a Judgment nullifying the election in the 31 Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State in its judgment delivered on 18th December 2015. This appeal is by the Appellants who were 3rd and 4th Respondents at the Court below. Their Notice of Appeal filed on 29th December 2015 contains 13 grounds of appeal from which 3 issues for the determination of the appeal were identified in the Appellants’ brief of argument. The issues are:
“1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong when they held that the 1st and 2nd Respondents relying on Exhibit 317 the Card Reader Report proved that there were improper accreditation leading to over voting at the election and that the Appellants and 3rd and 4th Respondents tailed to discharge the burden which shitted to them to prove the contrary.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal having held that the 1st and 2nd Respondents based

their case on Exhibit 317 the Card Reader Report, and that defence placed no reliance on the Register of Voters were wrong when they embarked on speculation as to the number of accredited voters on the Register of voters.
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong when they held that the 1st and 2nd Respondents proved the alleged acts of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended which substantially affected the result of the election.”

It is observed that in the Election Petition filed on 30th April, 2015, the 1st and 2nd Respondents as Petitioners challenged the election and return of the 3rd Respondent as Governor of Akwa Ibom on 2 main grounds, that is
“(i) The election as invalid by reason of corrupt practices and/or non-compliance with the Provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.
(ii) The 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes at the election.”

From the Judgment of the Election Tribunal, the Tribunal seem to had agreed with the case presented by the Defendants/Respondents to the Petition and essentially dismissed the Petitioners now 1st and 2nd Respondents’ case on

improper accreditation, the electoral malpractices sought to be proved by the introduction of alleged experts evidence on alleged multiple thumb printing of ballot papers by rejecting the evidence of the witnesses called by the Petitioners now 1st and 2nd Respondent. However, the Tribunal relying on the evidence of a few witnesses of the Petitioners who were not in attendance in all the polling units in the State, to cancel or nullify the election in 18 out of 31 Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State to give rise to the appeal to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and nullified the entire election in Akwa Ibom State in its judgment of 18th December 2015 now on appeal in this appeal by the Appellants.

The law is indeed well settled that the duty to prove over-voting is on the Petitioners now 1st and 2nd Respondents and to do so the law requires the 1st and 2nd Respondents as Petitioners to tender in evidence the voters registers and statements of result in appropriates form which would show the number of registered accredited voters and the number of actual votes cast at the polling unit. Each document such as Form EC8A from each polling unit must

be related to specified area of the case of the Petitioners in respect of which the documents were put in evidence. The exercise must also show that the figure representing the alleged over-voting if removed from the total votes, would result in victory for the Petitioners. See HARUNA vs. MODIBBO (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt.900) 487 and AUDU VS. INEC (No.2) (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1212) 456. The law as it stands therefore, does not allow the determination of over-voting in any election from the Card Readers Report Exhibit 317 showing number of voters accredited and the list of registered voters at the election as was done by the Court below in the present appeal. This was one of errors committed by the Court below resulting in allowing this appeal in my own Judgment delivered on Wednesday 3rd February, 2016.

SC.4/2016 (REASONS)