LAWAL V. MATAWALLE (2024)

Background

This appeal concerned the 18 March 2023 Zamfara State governorship election. Dauda Lawal, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, was declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to have won the election with 377,721 votes, against Bello Muhammad Matawalle’s 311,976 votes. Lawal was consequently returned as Governor pursuant to section 179(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

Matawalle and the All Progressives Congress challenged the declaration before the Zamfara State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal. Their principal case was that the result declared for Maradun Local Government Area was false and that the actual votes shown in duplicate polling-unit result forms would have given Matawalle the highest number of lawful votes. They also alleged that elections were not held or were cancelled in several polling units, that there was over-voting and non-accreditation of voters, and that the number of affected voters exceeded the margin of lead.

The tribunal dismissed the petition. It found that the petitioners had failed to tender the duplicate Forms EC8A on which their allegation of a different “actual” result was based. It also found that Form EC8C relied upon by the petitioners was illegible and had been discredited by its maker, PW19, who admitted that the figures recorded in it were not the actual votes. The tribunal further held that much of the oral testimony concerning events at polling units was hearsay.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal declared the election inconclusive, set aside Lawal’s return, and ordered fresh elections in Maradun Local Government Area and affected polling units in Birnin Magaji and Bukuyum Local Government Areas. Lawal appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to order fresh elections in Maradun and other areas.
2. Whether the alleged margin-of-lead principle and the claimed polling-unit irregularities were proved.
3. Whether IReV could be used to verify or collate election results.
4. Whether the petitioners’ witnesses gave hearsay evidence and whether documentary evidence had merely been dumped on the tribunal.
5. Whether the Court of Appeal properly re-evaluated the evidence and was entitled to reject INEC’s Form EC8C.
6. Whether the Court of Appeal could grant both substantive and alternative reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It held that Form EC8A, being the polling-unit result, is the primary and foundational evidence of votes cast. Form EC8B is a summary of polling-unit results, while Form EC8C is a summary of ward results. Consequently, a party challenging an INEC collation must ordinarily produce the relevant Form EC8A or the duplicate supplied to its polling agent. The petitioners’ failure to tender the pleaded duplicate Forms EC8A meant that their assertion of a second, genuine result had no evidential foundation.

The Court applied section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which places the burden of proving an asserted fact on the party seeking judgment on that fact. It also upheld the tribunal’s application of section 167(d) of the Evidence Act: where material evidence capable of being produced is withheld, the court may presume that it would be unfavourable to the person withholding it.

The Court further held that IReV is part of the electoral process for the purposes recognised by clauses 38, 48 and 93 of INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections, 2022. Where a lower-level result is disputed or found incorrect, electronically transmitted results or results on IReV may be used for verification and, where appropriate, collation. INEC’s resort to IReV, BVAS and the Forms EC8A and EC8B to test the reliability of PW19’s Form EC8C was therefore lawful.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the figures in the petitioners’ Forms EC8B did not tally with the figures in their Form EC8C. The maker of Form EC8C admitted that it was illegible and that the figures of 98,506 votes for Matawalle and 618 votes for Lawal were not the actual scores. The document consequently lacked probative value.

On non-holding or cancellation of elections, the Court held that Form EC40G alone is insufficient. It should be supported by the Presiding Officer’s report and testimony from a polling-unit agent or another person present at the polling unit. Similarly, over-voting requires relevant Forms EC8A and BVAS evidence, while non-accreditation requires evidence such as BVAS, the voters’ register, and testimony from a registered voter, polling-unit agent, or person present during polling.

The Court held that ward and local-government collation agents who were not present at the disputed polling units could not competently testify about what occurred there. Their evidence, based on information received from polling-unit agents, was hearsay under sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act. The documents tendered through them were also “dumped” on the tribunal because they were not linked, through testimony, to specific allegations such as over-voting, cancellation, non-accreditation or alteration.

Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 does not remove the petitioner’s obligation to prove non-compliance. Oral evidence may be unnecessary only where an original or certified copy manifestly discloses the alleged non-compliance on its face. It does not apply to documents that require explanation or interpretation. The Court also held that the Court of Appeal had not genuinely re-evaluated the evidence before overturning the tribunal’s factual findings.

Regarding reliefs, the Court held that a court must determine the principal relief before considering an alternative relief. It is legally erroneous to grant inconsistent substantive and alternative reliefs together.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal judgment of 16 November 2023, including its declaration that the election was inconclusive, the order setting aside Lawal’s return, and the orders for fresh elections. The judgment of the Zamfara State Governorship Election Tribunal, delivered on 18 September 2023, dismissing the petition and affirming Lawal’s election, was restored. There was no order as to costs. The decision was stated to bind the related appeals in SC/CV/1166/2023, SC/CV/1167/2023 and SC/CV/1168/2023.

Significance

Lawal v. Matawalle reinforces the centrality of polling-unit evidence in Nigerian election litigation. It establishes that disputed ward or local-government summaries cannot ordinarily substitute for the underlying Forms EC8A. The decision also confirms the lawful evidential role of IReV and electronically transmitted results in verifying disputed collation, while warning petitioners that allegations of electoral irregularities must be supported by competent eyewitness testimony and properly connected documentary evidence. The judgment further emphasises that appellate courts should not disturb factual findings without a genuine re-evaluation of the record and that lower courts must comply with binding Supreme Court precedent.