Election Petitions (568)
"To disqualify a candidate for falsification, the infraction must relate to the very point on which the qualification depends. Thus, where the alleged falsified document is not a qualifying factor under the Constitution of Nigeria, its presentation cannot disqualify an otherwise qualified person. Again see the case of AD v. Fayose under reference supra." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 86, Paras. E-G) JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)
"... The above makes it very clear that a party is supreme over its own affairs. See Dalhatu v Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt.843) p. 310 Onuoha v. Okafor & Ors (1983) 14 NSCC p.494. Uzodima v Izunaso (No 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) p. 30 PDP v Sylva (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1316) p. 85. A party is like a club. A voluntary association.
A petitioner who contests the legality or lawfulness of votes cast at an election and subsequent return must tender in evidence, all the necessary evidence by way of forms and other documents used at the election. He should not stop there. He must call witnesses substantially affected by the result of the election. The documents are among those in which the results of the votes are recorded. The witnesses are those who saw it all on the day of the election, not those who picked that evidence from an eye witness. They must be eye witnesses too. Abubakar v. Yar 'adua (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 1 at 155; Iniama v. Akpabio (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1116) 225.
Maku vs Al-Makura & 3 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Pp. 129 -130] Paras. F-B
Success and failure are the end products of our electoral process and in fact any contest at all. If in the end, the process does not produce a winner and loser, it has failed to achieve its goal and is inconclusive.
While it is necessary for a politician aspiring to elective office to have a mindset to win, he has to appreciate, and be prepared to accept, the fact that success and failure are the opposite sides of the end product of all contests, including elections. An electoral process is geared towards eliminating the many to pave way for the emergence of one.
The proper venue to challenge the selection or nomination of a candidate by a Political Party for an election is the High Court of a State, the Federal High Court or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as the Party filing the action may choose.
Tarzoor vs Ortom & 2 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Pp. 46-47] Para. G
Primary elections are in-house matters of a political party. A non-member of the party has no locus to raise the issue and no member of the party who was not an aspirant can raise the issue. Section 87 (9) (a) of the Election Act, 2010 (as amended), Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113 at 155-157.
Tarzoor vs Ortom & 2 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 46] Paras. B-D
By the provisions of Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, 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;
- he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.
Tarzoor vs Ortom & 2 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 44] Paras. B-E
An election petition maybe presented by one or more of the following persons:
- a candidate in an election;
- a political party which participated in the election. Section 137 (J) of the 1999 Constitution.
Tarzoor vs Ortom & 2 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Pp. 41-42] Paras. G-B
By section 221 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, no association other than a Political Party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate at an election.
Tarzoor vs Ortom & 2 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 41] Paras. A-C
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