Election Petitions (568)
By the provisions of section 285 (3) paragraph 2(1) of the sixth schedule as well as section 285 (4) of the 1979 Constitution, the Governorship Election Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and two other members while the quorum of an election Tribunal shall be the chairman and one other member. [Po 148] Paras. D-F Nyesom v. Peters ide & Ors [2016] 2 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)
There is need for a Petitioner who alleges over-voting to lead concrete evidence to show that there was indeed over-voting and that it inured to the winner of the contest. Without doubt, over-voting in an election can be in favour of either the Appellant, the Respondents or other contestants who participated and lost out at the election but are not parties to the Petition. Therefore, the onus is on the Petitioner to show that the over-voting was in favour of the Respondent and that it was as a result of the over-voting that the 1st Respondent won the election. This is why the law requires the Petitioner to lead evidence right from the polling unit in order to show that the alleged over-voting was solely to the advantage of the Respondent. [Pp. 34-35] Paras. G-B Shinkafi & Anor. v. Yari & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)
For a petitioner to succeed in a case bothering on the fact that an election or return in an election be invalidated by reason of corrupt practices or non- compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, he must prove that:
- the corrupt practice or non-compliance took place; (2) the practice or non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election.
Sections 138(1)(b) and 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). Awolowo v. Shagari (1979) All NLR 120, Ibrahim v. Shagari (1983) 2 SCNLR 176; Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 241; PDP v. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525. [Po 34] Paras. E-G Shinkafi & Anor. v. Yari & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)
To prove over - voting, the Petitioner must -
- Tender the voters' register.
- Tender the Statement of Result in the appropriate forms which would show the number of registered accredited voters and number of actual votes.
- Relate each of the documents to the specific area ofhis case in respect of which the documents are tendered.
- Show that the figure representing the over-voting if removed would result in victory for the Petitioner. Haruna Modibbo (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 487; Kalgo v. Kalgo (J 999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 606) 639 and A udu v. 1NEC (No.2) (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 456. [Pp. 32-33] Paras. F-B Shinkafi & Anor. v. Yari & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)
By the provisions of section 182(1) of the 1999 Constitution, no person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if:
- Subject to the provisions of section 28 of this Constitution, he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than Nigeria or, except in such cases as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, he has made a declaration of allegiance to such other country; or
- He has been elected to such office at any two previous elections; or
By virtue of the provisions of section 177 of the 1999 Constitution, a person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if:
- He is a citizen of Nigeria by birth;
- He has attained the age of thirty-five years;
- He is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party; and
- He has been educated up to at least School Certificate lever or its equivalent. " [Pp. 27-28] Paras. G-A Shinkafi & v. Yari & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)
The person vested with the locus standi to challenge the nomination or selection of a person for an election during a primary election is only an aspirant at the primary election by virtue of the provisions of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). Aside the aspirant who took part in the primary election, no other person is authorised to file an action to challenge the selection or nomination of a candidate by a political party for an election. Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113 at 155-157. [Po 26] Paras. E-G Shinkafi & Anor. v. Yari & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)
Where a Political Party conducts its primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary election complains about its conduct of the primaries, the courts have jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) to examine if the conduct of the primary was in accordance with the party Constitution and Guidelines. The reason is that in the conduct of its primaries, the courts will never allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as it likes. A political party must obey its Constitution. [Pp. 25-26] Paras. G-B Shinkafi & Anor. v. Yari & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)
A court has no jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor in an election. [Po 25] Para. G Shinkafi & Anor. v. Yari & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)
A Political Party seeking to nominate candidates for election under the Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions. The procedure shall be either by direct or indirect primaries. The right to nominate or sponsor candidate by a Political Party is a domestic right of the party. It is a political matter within the exclusive discretion of the party. PDP v. Sylva (2012) LPELR - 7814 (SC) (Consolidated), Hope Uzodinma v. Senator Osita Izunaso (2011) Vol. 5 (Pt. 1) MJSC P 27; Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244. [Po 25] Paras. F-G Shinkafi & Anor. v. Yari & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)