site logo

PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) V. INDEPENDENT NATIONALELECT (2019)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC (Presided)
  • Olukayode Ariwoola JSC
  • John Inyang Okoro JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)
  • Paul Adamu Galumje JSC
  • Uwani Musa Abba-Aji JSC

Parties:

Appellants:

  • People’s Democratic Party (PDP)
  • Olusola Kolapo Olubunmi

Respondents:

  • Independent National Electoral Commission
  • All Progressive Congress (APC)
  • John Olukayode Fayemi
Suit number: SC.409/2019

Background

This case concerns an electoral dispute arising from the Governorship Election held in Ekiti State on July 14, 2018, where the 3rd respondent, John Olukayode Fayemi of the All Progressive Congress (APC) was declared the winner. Aggrieved by the outcome, the 2nd appellant, Olusola Kolapo Olubunmi, contested the election on the platform of the 1st appellant, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), and subsequently filed a petition at the election tribunal challenging the results based on allegations of non-compliance with electoral laws, irregularities, and malpractices. The tribunal dismissed the petition, leading to an appeal in the Court of Appeal, which was also dismissed. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellants approached the Supreme Court for redress.

Issues

The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing several critical issues:

  1. Whether the lower courts correctly assessed the credibility and probative value of testimonies from witnesses presented by the appellants.
  2. Whether the appellants adequately proved their allegations against the election outcomes in the specified local government areas.
  3. Whether the appellants were denied their right to a fair hearing in the handling of witness testimonies.
  4. Whether the appellants successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding various allegations of electoral infringements.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court maintained that:

  1. Credible evidence must come from witnesses who directly observed the electoral process at the relevant polling units; testimony based on hearsay lacks probative value.
  2. The burden of proof lies with the appellants to substantiate their claims of non-compliance with electoral laws, which must be proven to a standard that affects the election's result.

Court Findings

The court affirmed the previous findings of fact by the election tribunal affirming that:

  1. The testimonies from PW31 and PW32, individuals who attempted to provide evidence on behalf of the appellants, were predominantly hearsay.
  2. The evidence provided by polling agents who were not present at the polling units significantly undermined the credibility of the allegations against the election process.
  3. The appellants failed to establish that their claims of electoral malpractices had any substantive impact on the election outcome.

Conclusion

In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity for credible and concrete evidence in electoral disputes, emphasizing that appellants must not only allege electoral misconduct but must prove the allegations to a standard that can impact the result of the elections.

Significance

This case underscores the principles regarding the burden of proof in electoral petitions and the importance of establishing direct evidence from witnesses who have firsthand experience of the events in question. It sets a significant precedent for future electoral disputes in Nigeria, reinforcing the judicial expectation for parties challenging election outcomes to present compelling and firsthand testimonial evidence.