ADEKOLA V. I.N.E.C. (2021)

Background

This case originates from the Oyo State gubernatorial election held on March 9, 2019, where Oluseyi Makinde of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) was declared the winner. Following this declaration, Adelabu Adebayo Adekola, representing the All Progressives Congress (APC), and other candidates filed a petition at the Governorship Election Tribunal, claiming that the election results were not reflective of the majority of lawful votes, citing serious non-compliance with electoral laws and corrupt practices. The Tribunal dismissed their petition, prompting the appellants to appeal the decision.

Issues

The appeal raised several critical issues:

1. Did the Tribunal violate the appellants' right to fair hearing by failing to properly evaluate and ascribe probative value to testimony?
2. Were the 27 witnesses' testimonies deemed hearsay, and did the Tribunal err in its conclusion regarding document submission?
3. Was the Tribunal correct in asserting that the votes must not necessarily tally with the card reader report?
4. Did the Tribunal fail to recognize sufficient evidence regarding electoral malpractice?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had indeed acted improperly in evaluating evidence presented by both parties, resulting in perverse findings. A key takeaway from the judgment is that a fair hearing necessitates that each party’s evidence be thoroughly evaluated.

Court Findings

The Court emphasized that:

• Evaluation of all relevant evidence is crucial for a fair verdict.
• Failure to challenge the authenticity of documents at trial effectively negates any objections on appeal.
• The requirement for the votes cast to tally with accredited voters is not merely procedural but fundamental to election integrity.
• The evidence provided by the witnesses who observed the electoral process should not have been disregarded as hearsay if they were indeed present.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision but declining to nullify the election. It held that while the Tribunal had erred in various respects, the relief sought by the appellants could not be granted solely based on these findings, as nullification was contingent upon the failure in compliance with essential electoral laws.

Significance

This ruling is significant for Nigerian electoral law, as it clarifies the importance of evaluating all evidence presented in electoral disputes and reinforces the necessity of compliance with electoral regulations. The decision highlights the potential for procedural missteps to result in miscarriages of justice in electoral contests, setting a precedent for future cases involving election petitions.