RIVERS ELECTION: Supreme Court Explains Reasons On its Verdict

Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

SUPREME Court has adduced reasons on how it arrived at the conclusion to affirm the election of Nyesom Wike as the validly elected governor of Rivers State thereby setting aside the verdict of the Court of Appeal which earlier nullified the election and ordered for a re-run within ninety days.

Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun who read the reasons criticized Election Tribunal and the Court of Appeal for excessively relying on INEC guidelines vis-à-vis the newly introduced Card Reader in arriving at their judgments.

Furthermore, the apex court stated that the judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the Election Tribunal against Wike was erroneous as the governor was not given fair hearing which is a fundamental human right noting that the facts he presented to the Tribunal were not considered accordingly.

In addition, the court stated that pursuant to Section 294 of the Constitution held that the absence of the signature of the chairman of the Election tribunal, Justice Suleiman Ambrosa on the judgment indicating that he wasn’t a party to the tribunal ab initio rendered the entire judgment invalid as the discovery indicated that the tribunal lacked appropriate quorum and therefore not properly constituted. Similarly, it added that the Tribunal’s chairman replaced Mu’azu Pindiga in the middle of the proceedings of the appeal.

On the allegation of excessive voting, the Justice Kekere-Ekun stated that the petitioners, Dr. Dakuku Peterside a‎nd All Progressives Congress, APC failed to prove the allegations by not providing sufficient witnesses from various polling units and electoral wards rather tendered only 11 voter registers out of 23 local government areas in the state.

On the allegation of non-compliance, the court also held that the petitioners failed to substantially prove its claims having failed to tender the voter’s register; statement of results in the appropriate forms which was supposed to show the number of registered accredited voters and the number of the actual voters. Above all, it did not relate each of the documents to the specific areas of his case in respect of which the documents were tendered and show that the figures representing the over-voting, if removed, would result in his victory.

On the competence of witnesses in view of the claims, it stated that out of the 5,000 polling units, the petitioners only called few witnesses who were collection agents and not the accredited polling agents adding that usually, collection agents are not under obligation to witness and participate in elections as party agents, hence drew an inference that their reports are usually based on hear-say reports and therefore not competent stakeholders towards establishing such claims in an elections.

On the evidence of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC staff (Mr. Okoye), known as PW40 who described the election as a sham and marred by violence, the court held that his evidence cannot supersede the place of voters adding that the INEC officer also admitted under cross examination that his remarks were based on information gathered incidents directly witnessed, and therefore a mere hear-say evidence.