Law
PEPC’s judgment was erroneous, Atiku tells Supreme Court
***fails to recognize ‘Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation’
***Says justices exhibited bias through uncomplimentary remarks
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in the last presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court having failed to take into cognisance the “Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation” regarding the failure of INEC to conduct the election in accordance with its own guidelines and the Electoral Act, 2022.
The doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person.
In Nigeria, the doctrine of legitimate expectation demands that a public authority shall respect and apply its stated position or sustained practice in exercising its powers on members of the public.
However, Atiku in his Notice of Appeal dated September 18, and filed by his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, submitted that the failure of the tribunal to apply the said doctrine is enough ground for the apex court to set aside the entire decision of the lower court.
Specifically in ground seven of his Notice of Appeal, the former Vice President submitted that, “the lower Court erred in Law when it failed to nullify the presidential election held on February 25, 2023 on the ground of noncompliance with the Electoral Act 2022, when by evidence before the Court, the 1st Respondent (INEC) conducted the election based on very grave and gross misrepresentation contrary to the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, based on the “doctrine of legitimate expectation”.
While pointing out that the Electoral Act 2022, made the use of Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) and INEC’s Results Viewing (IReV) portals mandatory in the conduct of the 2023 general elections, adding that, INEC through its Chairman, Professor Yakubu Mahmood, publicly gave guarantees, undertakings, clear and unambiguous representations to candidates and political parties, that polling units results were mandatorily required to be electronically transmitted or transferred directly by the Presiding Officers, he argued that, “there was no evidence before the lower Court that the 1st Respondent altered its aforesaid Guidelines and Regulations to remove the said requirement of electronic transmission of the results of the election directly from the polling units to the 1st Respondent’s Collation System”.
It is the submission of Atiku that, INEC “conducted the said Presidential Election based on the gross misrepresentation to the Appellants and the general voting public that the Presiding Officers were going to electronically transmit the results of the said election directly from the polling units to the 1st Respondent’s Collation System.
He added that, “Contrary to the above unambiguous representations, undertakings and guarantees, the 1st Respondent neither deployed the electronic transmission of election results nor the electronic collation system in the said election, sabotaging the raison d’etre for the enactment of the new Electoral Act 2022 and the introduction of the technological innovations.
“Rather than hold the 1st Respondent (INEC) as a public institution accountable to the representations that it made pursuant to its statutory and constitutional duties which created legitimate expectation on the part of the Appellant’s, the lower court wrongly exonerated the 1st Respondent of any responsibility by holding that the use of the technological innovations to guarantee transparency was not mandatory”.
It was the appellant’s further position that the February 25 poll was “conducted based on very grave and gross misrepresentation and was therefore oppressive to the Appellants and thus not free and fair, and not in accordance with the principles of the Electoral Act 2022, and not protected by the presumption of regularity, as well as the preamble and the fundamental objectives and directive principles of State Policy of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) adopted by the lower court.
“The grave misrepresentation negated the legal presumption of official regularity in favour of the 1st Respondent.
Besides, Atiku told the apex court that INEC as a public institution is not above the law, and not entitled to breach its own regulations with impunity, after clear and unambiguous representations upon which parties have placed reliance and entitled to legitimate expectation.
“The said election ought to have been nullified by reason of the said gross misrepresentation by a public institution based upon the “doctrine of legitimate expectation” as applied by the Supreme Court as a policy Court….”
Accusing the tribunal of bias, the appellants stated in grounds 34 that the “lower Court erred in law in its use of disparaging words against the Appellants in its judgment evincing bias against the Appellants as Petitioners and thereby violating their right to fair hearing and occasioning grave miscarriage of justice.
The justices in their verdicts, while discountenancing the arguments and contentions of the Appellants used expressions such as ‘ludicrous’ (page 721 of the judgment), ‘clever by half’ (page 557 of the judgment), ‘dishonourable practice’ (page
507 of the judgment), ‘smuggle’ (page 557), ‘fallacious’ (page 721
of the judgment); ‘foul play’ (page 560 of the judgment), ‘cross the
line of misconception’ (page 644 of the judgment); ‘collect evidence from the market’ (page 765 of the judgment); ‘those who are not
used to reading preambles’ (page 726 of the judgment); ‘hollowness in the argument of the Petitioners’ (page 727 of the judgment); etc.
It is the position of the appellants that the choice of words and expressions by the lower court shows the
lower Court’s contempt and disdain for the Appellants.
“The lower court failed to use civil, modest, moderate, and temperate language that is befitting of the exalted position of the court in line with the Revised Code for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, promulgated by the National Judicial Council.
“The words against the Appellants in the judgment evince a disposition in the mind of the lower court that was far from objective, which approach demonstrated bias and infringement to the Appellants’ right to fair hearing.
“The Appellants were entitled to approach the Court for the
ventilation of their grievances, which court was set up as the
Presidential Election Petition Court, solely to receive petitions arising from the presidential election.
“The right to present an election petition in respect of a presidential election is a right granted by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022, which right the Appellants merely exercised.
“The use of the said words and expressions substantially affected the lower court’s consideration of the Appellants’ case, peremptorily
striking out their witness statements on oath, their exhibits, their pleadings, and discountenancing the evidence of their witnesses, and thus occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice”, the appellants submitted.
Recall that the five-member panel of the tribunal had on September 6 upheld the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.
The panel in a unanimous decision held that Atiku, as well as other petitioners against the February 25 presidential election, were unable to substantiate their allegations against the poll conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Specifically, the panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani in their judgments held that, the documentary and oral evidences presented before them could not prove claims of irregularities, corrupt practices, non-compliance amongst other claims for which Atiku had asked the court to void Tinubu’s election.
Dissatisfied, Atiku claiming that the lower tribunal erred in law in affirming the outcome of the February 25 poll, has amongst others asked the Supreme Court to set aside the entire decision of the tribunal.
Atiku, in addition, prayed the apex court to after voiding Tinubu’s election, declare him as the authentic winner of the poll.
Atiku, who came second in the poll, is claiming that he and not Tinubu actually won the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election, but the electoral umpire, however, manipulated the process in favour of Tinubu.
Court remands man over sodomy with 2 sons
By Friday Idachaba, Lokoja.
A Lokoja Chief Magistrate Court has remanded a middle aged man, Dan Sokoto Shaibu in Federal Correctional Centre, Koton-Karfe for allegedly indulging in sodomy, (Homosexuality) with his two biological sons.
The Chief Magistrate, Memunat Abdullahi of Lokoja Chief Magistrate II gave the order in a preliminary ruling upon arraignment of the accused person in the court.
The prosecuting Police Officer, Gabriel Otowu Esq. who is also the Officer-In-Charge, Legal matters (OC-Legal) at Kogi Police Command while reading the First Information Report (FIR) said the accused had serially abused the two underaged children.
He said that the Shaibu had over time, indulged in annal sexual intercourse with his two biological sons, Abubakar, 17 and m Habeeb, 11 in their house.
He said that the act was country to and punishable under Section 292 of Kogi State Administration of Criminal Justice Law.
The Prosecuting Counsel, Otowu, in his submission said investigation into the matter was on-going and therefore, presented a motion urging the court to remand the accused in the Federal Correctional Centre Koton-Karfe.
Otowu who supported the motion with a 7-paragraph affidavit and Form 8 as required by the Law, argued that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
The OC Legal said that there was need to remand the accused in prison custody to check his possible interference with police investigations.
He urged the court to grant the application saying that it would enable the police to carryout thorough investigation into the matter.
The accused, Dan Sokoko Shuiabu who pleaded guilty to the charge, confessed that he committed under the influence of alcohol.
He said that he was married to four wives three of whom divorced him while he lost the last one to cold hands of death adding that his first daughter was already married with three children.
Chief Magistrate Memunat Abdullahi in her preliminary ruling, held that having perused the exparte motion and the supporting affidavit she had no choice than to grant the application.
She therefore ordered the remand of the accused in the custody of Federal Correctional Centre, Koton-Karfe and adjourned to September 9th, for hearing. (Ends)
There is palpable tension following a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal ordering former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello to present himself for arraignment and face fraud charges.
The court also barred Bello from taking any further steps to halt the charges unless he is arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The ruling is coming following Bello’s perchance for evading arrest and refusing to appear in court, attempting to have the case relocated to Kogi State, or stalled due to technicalities.
The Court of Appeal’s decision puts an end to Bello’s efforts to delay or relocate the trial, requiring him to appear in court to answer to the fraud charges concerning his actions as governor from 2015-2023
The Labour Party (LP), on Monday urged the Supreme Court to act decisively to uphold the electoral laws by cancelling the results of the 2023 Imo Governorship election, as announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The National Publicity Secretary of the party, Obiora Ifoh, who gave the indication om Monday at a news conference in Abuja said the Party’s search for justice is in the greater interest of the people of Imo State and democracy.
Recall that the Court of Appeal Abuja, had dismissed the appeal by the Labour Party and its candidate, Athan Achonu for lack of merit.
It also dismissed the Appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate Samuel Anyanwu and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) for also lacking in merit.
The appellants who were dissatisfied with the tribunal Judgment, had approached the court of appeal on grounds that the November 11, 2023 election, was invalid because of non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act.
The appellants also challenged Uzodimma’s qualification with an allegation that his WAEC Certificate of Education result, was forged.
But the court of appeal held that the appellants in their appeal, failed to prove the allegation of non-compliance as alleged.
The three-man panel led by Justice Bitrus Sanga also held that the appellants failed, to prove that the governor submitted a forged certificate.
continuing Ifoh at the conference said, “The importance of justice in the governance of Imo State cannot be overstated.
“Labour Party and its candidate in the November 2023 governorship election in Imo state, Senator Athan Achonu have one more chance in the Supreme Court to right the wrongs meted to the Imo electorates who are forced to tolerate a government they never wished for themselves.
“Recall, also that in 2020, Imo state was a victim of controversial decision that dramatically altered the political landscape of the state.
“Despite clear evidence of over-voting, which should have led to the cancellation of the election, the court handed the governorship to a candidate in the face of over voting.
“These decisions in both 2020 and 2023, not only contradicted the principles of fairness and transparency but also set a dangerous precedent that undermines the integrity of our electoral process.
“As we approach another Supreme Court judgment, the question of over voting rears its head again.
“If it scales through again, it means that over voting will become an unwritten law of electoral jurisprudence in Imo state.
“It is therefore imperative that the Supreme Court corrects this miscarriage of justice. The future of Imo State’s development hinges on the rule of law and the public’s trust in our judicial system.
Related News
“A just and fair resolution in the current case before the court will not only restore confidence in our democracy but also pave the way for genuine progress and development in Imo State.
“The people deserve a leadership that truly reflects their will, and the time for justice is now. “
Giving insights into why the party took the matter to the highest court in the land, Ifoh said, “First, the integrity of the electoral process is the cornerstone of any democracy, and in Nigeria, our electoral laws are designed to ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected in election outcomes.
“Unfortunately, in the case of the recent Imo State governorship election, these laws were blatantly disregarded by both the election tribunal and the appeal court, leading to a grave miscarriage of justice.
“The issue at hand is clear: the total number of certified accredited voters for November 2023 governorship election, as certified by INEC, was just over 500,000.
“However, the total votes counted, which was used to declare the candidate of APC winner exceeded 700,000, resulting in an over-voting discrepancy of more than 200,000.
“We had raised this issue during the election as we had clear evidences of abuse of electoral practices including falsification and mutilation of result sheets, harassment of the Labour Party’s agents, snatching of ballot boxes and open vote buying.
“According to Section 53 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), any election marred by over-voting should be canceled.
“This provision is unambiguous and does not leave room for alternative interpretations. The law was crafted to protect the sanctity of the electoral process and ensure that elections are free, fair, and reflective of the voters’ true choice.
“Regrettably, despite the overwhelming evidence of over-voting, both the election tribunal and the appeal court failed to apply this clear legal standard.
“ Instead, they chose to validate an election result that is fundamentally flawed and legally indefensible.
“This is not just a violation of the law but also a profound injustice to the people of Imo State, who deserve a leadership that genuinely reflects their will.
“The situation is eerily reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in 2020, where a similar issue of over-voting was overlooked, leading to the installation of a candidate who had initially placed third.
“Such judicial oversights undermine public confidence in the electoral system and threaten the very foundations of our democracy.
“The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to correct this injustice and restore faith in our legal institutions by upholding the law as it is written—clear, unambiguous, and without room for further interpretation.
“In yet another clear instance of miscarriage of justice, the petitioners in the Imo State governorship case faced significant obstacles in accessing crucial evidence, specifically the BVAS (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System) devices.
“Despite making formal requests for over 4,000 BVAS units, which were essential to prove their case of electoral malpractice, the petitioners encountered deliberate delays and obstructions.
“Only 30 BVAS units were eventually provided, and even then, only for partial inspection.
“Of utmost importance is that fact that the Imo State election took place in only 4,720 out of 4,758 polling units in Imo State.
“Labour Party has also noted that the direct implications of these rape on democracy could be the inability of the Imo citizens to submit and subject themselves to the present government which they believe was imposed on them.”
The LP Spokesman described the last four and half years of the Senator Hope Uzodinma administration as a disaster.
He reiterated that the socio -economic crises in the state assumed a dangerous height under his rule.
Ifoh maintained that under his rule, criminality has become the order of the day and the economic potentials of the state have completely frozen and the state has the inglorious record of being the worst in terms of infrastructure in the entire South East.
Speaking on what Imolites and the Labour Party expect from the court, Ifoh said, “The Supreme Court is expected to act decisively and uphold the electoral laws.
“Given the clear evidence of over-voting, which invalidates the election results according to the law, the Court should order the cancellation of the flawed election and mandate a fresh governorship election in Imo state.
“This action is essential to restore public trust and uphold the integrity of the judicial system.”
-
Crime11 months agoPolice nabs Killer of Varsity Lecturer in Niger
-
News8 months agoFCT-IRS tells socialite Aisha Achimugu not to forget to file her annual returns
-
Appointment1 year agoTinubu names El-Rufai, Tope Fasua, others in New appointments
-
News From Kogi10 months agoINEC cancells election in 67 polling units in Ogori-Magongo in Kogi
-
News From Kogi1 year agoEchocho Challenges Tribunal Judgment ordering rerun in 94 polling units
-
News12 months agoIPOB: Simon Ekpa gives reason for seperatists clamour for Biafra
-
Metro6 months ago‘Listing Simon Ekpa among wanted persons by Nigeria military is rascality, intimidation’
-
News8 months agoKingmakers of Igu/ Koton-Karfe dare Bello, urge him to reverse deposition of Ohimege-Igu