NNAEMEKA V. I.N.E.C. (2024)

Background

This appeal concerned the Imo State Governorship Election conducted on 11 November 2023. Senator Anyanwu Samuel Nnaemeka and the Peoples Democratic Party challenged the return of Senator Uzodimma Odidika Goodhope of the All Progressives Congress as Governor. Their petition was dismissed by the Governorship Election Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. The appellants consequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

The petition rested principally on two grounds. First, the appellants alleged that the 3rd respondent was not qualified to contest because he had presented a forged secondary-school certificate to INEC in connection with Forms EC9 and CF001. They contended that the certificate belonged to another person and that the alleged forgery disqualified him under section 182(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution. Secondly, they alleged extensive non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022, the INEC Regulations and Guidelines, and the INEC Manual. The alleged irregularities included over-voting, non-accreditation or improper accreditation, non-use or bypass of BVAS, unsigned and unstamped result sheets, and discrepancies between polling-unit results and accreditation records.

The 3rd respondent also filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal was incompetent because its reliefs were headed “Reliefs Sought From the Court of Appeal” and did not expressly seek the setting aside of the tribunal’s judgment.

Issues

1. Whether the tribunal and Court of Appeal were right to reject exhibits P90 and P90A, being statistician’s reports relied upon to establish over-voting and other irregularities.
2. Whether INEC’s alleged failure to produce BVAS machines justified a presumption that the evidence would have been adverse to INEC.
3. Whether the appellants proved non-compliance with the Electoral Act and demonstrated that it substantially affected the election result.
4. Whether the alleged presentation of a forged certificate was a post-election issue within the jurisdiction of the election tribunal or a pre-election matter for the Federal High Court.
5. Whether INEC had standing to challenge the competence of the disqualification ground and raise a preliminary objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent decisions of the tribunal and the Court of Appeal. It held that the statistician’s reports were inadmissible. The witness who prepared them was not present in Imo State on election day, had no firsthand knowledge of the events, did not inspect the voters’ registers or BVAS machines, and merely analysed documents supplied by the appellants. His conclusions therefore amounted to hearsay and did not constitute admissible expert opinion under sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act. The court emphasised that a tribunal must examine documentary evidence and draw its own conclusions; it cannot simply adopt a witness’s opinion about documents.

The court further held that the direct and primary record of accreditation is the data contained in the BVAS machine used at the polling unit. The INEC back-end database is a post-election register under section 62 of the Electoral Act and is not itself the accreditation record. An allegation of over-voting ordinarily requires comparison of the voters’ register, the BVAS accreditation record or machine, and Forms EC8A showing votes cast. Failure to tender the necessary materials is fatal where the alleged discrepancy cannot otherwise be demonstrated.

Section 137 of the Electoral Act does not relieve a petitioner of the obligation to present credible evidence. Oral evidence may be unnecessary only where original or certified electoral documents manifestly disclose the alleged non-compliance. The appellants tendered only voters’ registers from seven of Imo State’s 27 local government areas and did not tender the BVAS machines or a certified report obtained from physical inspection of them. Their evidence consequently failed to establish the alleged irregularities.

Under section 135, proof of non-compliance alone is insufficient. The petitioner must also show that the non-compliance substantially affected the result. The complaints concerned 174 polling units out of 4,720, and the appellants failed to connect the alleged irregularities with any material alteration of the overall result.

Court Findings

The court rejected the argument that INEC withheld the BVAS machines. INEC’s officer testified that the requested materials were available and that arrangements had been made for their inspection or transportation. The appellants did not controvert that testimony and had themselves informed the tribunal that they had dispensed with the BVAS machines because they possessed BVAS screenshots. They could not affirm that position at trial and later contradict it on appeal to invoke the doctrine of withholding evidence.

On qualification, the court held that a certificate attached to Forms EC9 or CF001 forms part of the affidavit. Nevertheless, a complaint that a candidate supplied false information or a forged certificate in those documents is a pre-election matter governed by section 29(5) of the Electoral Act. The proper forum is the Federal High Court, not an election petition tribunal. The statutory scheme requires the issue to be raised by an appropriate aspirant, ordinarily within the prescribed 14-day period. A different political party could not use a post-election petition to litigate a stale pre-election disqualification complaint.

Because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over that ground, the Supreme Court considered the appellants’ complaint about the evaluation of exhibit P95 academic. It also held that INEC, although constitutionally required to remain neutral, was a party to the proceedings and entitled to fair hearing under section 36(1) of the Constitution. It could therefore challenge jurisdiction.

The preliminary objection was dismissed. The incorrect heading describing the reliefs as being sought from the Court of Appeal was merely a misnomer. The substance of the notice showed that the reliefs were directed to the Supreme Court, and there was no reasonable doubt or prejudice. The court stressed that substantial justice should prevail over technicality and that counsel, though expected to guide litigants competently, are human and may make procedural mistakes.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal judgment of 16 July 2024 and the tribunal judgment of 24 May 2024, thereby upholding the election and return of Senator Uzodimma Odidika Goodhope as Governor of Imo State. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Significance

The decision reinforces the strict evidential requirements governing Nigerian election petitions. It confirms that BVAS evidence, the voters’ register, and polling-unit result forms are central to proving accreditation disputes and over-voting. It also clarifies the boundary between pre-election and post-election jurisdiction: allegations concerning false information or forged certificates submitted in nomination forms must be pursued before the Federal High Court within the statutory framework. Finally, the judgment demonstrates the Supreme Court’s preference for substantial justice while preserving the need for precise, credible and properly admissible evidence in electoral litigation.