The Supreme Court in Abuja on Friday gave reasons for upholding the election of Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State. From the unanimous judgment read by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun we identified nine [9] cogent reasons for the decision the court arrived upon. These reasons were mostly predicated upon the testimony of Prosecution Witness 49, the constitutional role of the card reader and the inability of the respondents to prove non-compliance, which is expected to have been done, polling units by polling units, according to the provision of the constitution.
1.The inability of the tribunal to be properly constituted during the determination of the matter amounted to lack of fair hearing of the governor’s case and was a good ground to set aside the entire proceedings before it, but since it was an election matter which was time-bound, according to section 289 (6) and (7) of the constitution, it was necessary to consider the appeal according to its merit.
2.On the alleged violation of documents tendered at the tribunal and the appeal court, the court held that the function of the card reader, though quite commendable in the conduct of the 2015 elections, is solely to authenticate the owner of the voter’s card and prevent multiple voting by a single voter.
3.The card reader cannot replace the voters register, recognized by the constitution.
4.The 49th prosecution witness (PW), an Assistant Director of Information Communication and Technology at the Independent National Electoral Commission, acknowledged that the report she had testified to, was prepared by a certain Mrs. Nnenna, a staff of her unit. “The position of the law is that there is a difference between admissibility (relevance) and probative value (proof) to be attached to the said evidence. Where the maker of a document is not called to testify, the document should not be accorded probative value, not withstanding its status as a certified copy document.”
5. The said witness did not take part in any stage of the accreditation of voters, and was not in any position to testify as to how the card reader functioned during the election.
6.The same witness also told the tribunal during cross examination that she was not in Rivers State during the election and did not examine the card reader after the exercise.
7.Section 139 of the Constitution states that where a petitioner complains of non-compliance with the provisions of the act, he has an onerous task of proving it, polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities.” Out of the 11 voters registers tendered for 11 out of 23 Local Government Areas of the state, no attempt was made to link them to exhibits A9, which contained the number of accredited voters.
8. Documents before the court proved that the number of accredited voters stated in forms ECA8 was different from the number stated in exhibit A9 and was grossly inadequate in proving non-compliance, which is expected to have been done, polling units by polling units, according to the provision of the constitution.
9.Witnesses at the tribunal had testified that where the card reader failed to read a voter’s PVC, incident forms were used, but none of the forms were tendered by the first and second respondent.

kcmichael:
The Supreme Court in Abuja on Friday gave reasons for upholding the election of Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State. From the unanimous judgment read by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun we identified nine [9] cogent reasons for the decision the court arrived upon. These reasons were mostly predicated upon the testimony of Prosecution Witness 49, the constitutional role of the card reader and the inability of the respondents to prove non-compliance, which is expected to have been done, polling units by polling units, according to the provision of the constitution.
1.The inability of the tribunal to be properly constituted during the determination of the matter amounted to lack of fair hearing of the governor’s case and was a good ground to set aside the entire proceedings before it, but since it was an election matter which was time-bound, according to section 289 (6) and (7) of the constitution, it was necessary to consider the appeal according to its merit.
2.On the alleged violation of documents tendered at the tribunal and the appeal court, the court held that the function of the card reader, though quite commendable in the conduct of the 2015 elections, is solely to authenticate the owner of the voter’s card and prevent multiple voting by a single voter.
3.The card reader cannot replace the voters register, recognized by the constitution.
4.The 49th prosecution witness (PW), an Assistant Director of Information Communication and Technology at the Independent National Electoral Commission, acknowledged that the report she had testified to, was prepared by a certain Mrs. Nnenna, a staff of her unit. “The position of the law is that there is a difference between admissibility (relevance) and probative value (proof) to be attached to the said evidence. Where the maker of a document is not called to testify, the document should not be accorded probative value, not withstanding its status as a certified copy document.”
5. The said witness did not take part in any stage of the accreditation of voters, and was not in any position to testify as to how the card reader functioned during the election.
6.The same witness also told the tribunal during cross examination that she was not in Rivers State during the election and did not examine the card reader after the exercise.
7.Section 139 of the Constitution states that where a petitioner complains of non-compliance with the provisions of the act, he has an onerous task of proving it, polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities.” Out of the 11 voters registers tendered for 11 out of 23 Local Government Areas of the state, no attempt was made to link them to exhibits A9, which contained the number of accredited voters.
8. Documents before the court proved that the number of accredited voters stated in forms ECA8 was different from the number stated in exhibit A9 and was grossly inadequate in proving non-compliance, which is expected to have been done, polling units by polling units, according to the provision of the constitution.
9.Witnesses at the tribunal had testified that where the card reader failed to read a voter’s PVC, incident forms were used, but none of the forms were tendered by the first and second respondent.

It is obvious that the SC was a supperior judgement it is mischievous persons that are not in understanding of the verdict!
Congrats to the SC

The court has spoken.