MADAYI V. LAORI (2019)

Background

This appeal arose from the election into the Demsa/Numan/Lamurde Federal Constituency of Adamawa State, conducted on 23 February 2019. Mrs. Olvade Bema Madayi contested under the platform of the All Progressives Congress, while Kwamoti Bitrus Laori contested for the People’s Democratic Party. The Independent National Electoral Commission declared Laori the winner. Dissatisfied with the result, the appellants filed a petition before the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Adamawa State.

The petition alleged that Laori was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes, and that the election was invalid because of substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, and corrupt practices. The appellants sought declarations nullifying the election, withdrawal of Laori’s certificate of return, and an order directing INEC to conduct a fresh election in the affected polling units, wards or local government area. The tribunal dismissed the petition. The appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the tribunal was correct to hold that the appellants failed to prove the alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
2. Whether the tribunal failed to properly evaluate the oral and documentary evidence and wrongly treated the evidence of some witnesses, particularly PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW7, as hearsay.

Arguments and Evidence

The appellants relied on evidence from collation-centre officials, polling-unit agents and a ward agent. Their witnesses alleged discrepancies in election results, failure of smart-card readers, multiple voting, voting with voters’ cards belonging to other persons, thumb-printing by polling officials and adjustments or alterations to result sheets. A substantial volume of documentary exhibits, including election results and related materials, was also tendered.

However, cross-examination exposed significant weaknesses. Several witnesses admitted that they were not present at the polling units or wards about which they testified and that their information came from unnamed agents. Other witnesses could not identify the alleged perpetrators, quantify the number of irregular votes, establish who benefited from the alleged malpractice, or explain how the alleged irregularities affected the final result. The documents were also not sufficiently connected to the testimony of competent witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the burden of proving non-compliance with electoral legislation rests on the petitioner. Election results declared by INEC enjoy a prima facie presumption of regularity. A petitioner challenging such results must therefore do more than present allegations or minimal evidence. The petitioner must prove the alleged non-compliance polling unit by polling unit and ward by ward, identify the votes affected, demonstrate the relevant irregularities or missing electoral safeguards, and establish that the non-compliance was substantial enough to have affected the result.

In a challenge based on corrupt practices or statutory non-compliance, two essential matters must be proved: first, that the corrupt practice or non-compliance actually occurred; and second, that it substantially affected the outcome of the election. Only after the petitioner establishes these foundational matters does any meaningful evidential burden shift to the respondents.

The court further reaffirmed that a party who tenders documents must relate them to a specific part of the case through admissible oral evidence. Documents cannot simply be dumped on the court with the expectation that the court will independently inspect them, identify alleged discrepancies and construct a case for the tendering party. In election litigation, witnesses who were present when the relevant results were prepared or who can competently explain the documents are ordinarily required.

Court Findings

The court found that the evidence of PW1 was unreliable because of his conduct at the collation centre and his inability to give consistent evidence about the election. PW2 admitted that he did not sign the relevant result and had merely been informed of what occurred. PW3 and PW4 similarly conceded that they were not witnesses to events at the polling units identified in their statements and relied on information from other agents.

The polling-unit witnesses also failed to establish the allegations. PW6 claimed that the smart-card reader failed and that multiple voting occurred, but could not identify the voters involved, failed to report the alleged attack or malpractice, and gave evidence undermined by the presence of security personnel and other agents. PW8’s allegation that a polling clerk voted repeatedly for voters was considered implausible in circumstances where party supporters, security personnel and observers were present. PW10 could not state how many persons voted without proper cards or for whom they voted. The ward-agent evidence was likewise based largely on reports from others.

The documentary exhibits did not cure these defects. They were tendered without adequate demonstration of their relevance and without testimony from their makers or competent eyewitnesses. The court therefore held that the allegations remained unproved. It also observed that over-voting was not a pleaded ground of the petition and, in any event, was not established through the necessary comparison of the voters’ register and the relevant result forms.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal resolved both issues against the appellants. It held that the tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and correctly dismissed the petition. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The decision of the election petition tribunal was consequently affirmed.

Significance

The decision illustrates the demanding evidential standard applicable to election petitions in Nigeria. Allegations of irregular voting, non-use of smart-card readers, alterations to result sheets, multiple voting and corrupt practices must be pleaded with precision and proved through credible, direct and properly linked evidence. The case also confirms that declaratory reliefs are discretionary and are not granted merely because a respondent fails to defend the action or because documents have been admitted. The claimant must affirmatively prove entitlement to each declaration sought.