Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,711,149 members, 6,403,221 topics. Date: Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 04:24 AM

Morally Questionable But Legally Tenable. Analyzing Supreme Court Judgment - Politics - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Morally Questionable But Legally Tenable. Analyzing Supreme Court Judgment (263 Views)

Goodluck Jonathan: We Are In Trouble, Nigeria’s Unity Questionable / PDP To Protest Over Supreme Court Judgment In Imo / Kemi Adeosun's Questionable NYSC Certificate: Eight Things To Know (2) (3) (4)

(1) (Reply)

Morally Questionable But Legally Tenable. Analyzing Supreme Court Judgment by nairalee(m): 10:30am On Jan 16, 2020
THE IMO GUBERNATORIAL JUDGMENT - A PAINFUL BUT LEGALLY CORRECT VERDICT!

It is indeed a perplexing paradox: Hope Uzodinma may not have won the 2019 Imo State gubernatorial election, yet the Supreme Court, on the facts, was right in declaring him the winner of that election in law. The error was not the Supreme Court's, but that of Governor Emeka Ihedioha's legal team; and it was a crucially fatal error.

What happened was this: apparently concocted results, perhaps not having any basis whatsoever in reality, BUT SIGNED BY INEC PRESIDING OFFICERS, were turned in from more than 350 polling units, giving Hope Uzodinma of the APC an incredibly unassailable lead. When those results were transmitted to the wards collation centres, the collation officers, who had no power in law to cancel or reject them, rejected the said polling units results, and refused to collate them, thereby effectively excluding them from the total tally of the governorship result that was eventually declared by the Returning Officer.

The exclusion of the results of those polling units was the fulcrum of the petition presented at the Tribunal by Hope Uzodinma. Ever since David Mark V. ABUBAKAR USMAN, and DOMA V. INEC, the law has been settled that neither collation officers nor a returning officer, has the power in law to exclude a polling unit result duly signed by the presiding officer at the polling unit; only the election tribunal possesses the power to cancel or exclude such a result. So, at the point of its presentation, Senator Uzodinma's petition was potentially viable, in spite of the apparent dubiousness of the polling units results on which it was anchored, there being a REBUTTABLE presumption of regularity and correctness, by virtue of both the Electoral Act and Evidence Act, enuring in favour of any result declared by a presiding officer.

The backbreaking and fatal error made by Ihedioha's legal team was in not filing a CROSS PETITION fiercely challenging the integrity of the suspect polling units results upon which Uzodinma was relying, and praying the election tribunal to formally nullify the said results. Without a cross petition, none of the grounds under section 138 (1) of the Electoral Act for questioning the elections conducted in those polling units in which Uzodinma "won" could have been competently raised by Governor Ihedioha in his defence to Uzodinma's petition. This was the ratio decidendi of the old Court of Appeal decision in IDRIS V. A.N.P.P.(2008)8 NWLR(PT.1088) Page 1. In the recent Court of Appeal decision in ATIKU ABUBAKAR V. BUHARI, the Court of Appeal again invoked the principle in dismissing Buhari's contention that Atiku ABUBAKAR was born in Cameroun to parents who originally were Camerounians, and thus disqualified from contesting the election. Dismissing the contention, the Court of Appeal held that the issue was incompetent, since Buhari did not file a cross petition.

Tragically, Ihedioha's legal team forgot to include the pivotal cross petition. And in the absence of a cross petition, the Supreme Court was right in law, painfully though it may seem, to rely on the presumption of regularity and correctness enshrined by both the Electoral Act and Evidence Act in favour of the said results, and to reckon with them and add them up to the final result, since Ihedioha's legal team had woefully failed to effectively attack the results and rebut that presumption. For the Supreme Court, this was the legally correct conclusion to come to, having found that INEC had no power in law to exclude polling units results duly affirmed by the various polling units presiding officers!

Cc: lalasticlala mynd44

1 Like

Re: Morally Questionable But Legally Tenable. Analyzing Supreme Court Judgment by tompat86(m): 11:10am On Jan 16, 2020
Nice 1

1 Like

(1) (Reply)

Akeredolu And Other Governors Should However Do The Needful On ÀMÒTÉKÙN. / Enugu Senator Pays N55M WAEC Fees For All Female Students In His Constituency / I Won’t Stop Cursing Government -woman Losses 5 Children To Tarkwa Bay Invasion

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2021 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 46
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.