Background
This case arises from the Delta State House of Assembly election held on April 11, 2015, in which Mrs. Omawumi B. Udoh (the appellant) contested for the Warri South I Constituency seat against Mr. Godwin Abigor (the 1st respondent), who was sponsored by the Social Democratic Party (SDP, the 2nd respondent). The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC, the 3rd respondent) declared Mr. Abigor as the winner of the election. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the appellant filed a petition contending that she was more qualified for the seat. She alleged irregularities and sought a nullification of Mr. Abigor's election on various grounds, including corrupt practices and non-compliance with electoral law.
Issues
The core issue before the Court of Appeal concerns whether the lower tribunal correctly held that the 1st respondent was qualified to contest the electoral seat in question. The specific points for determination included:
- Whether the tribunal was right in its findings regarding the qualifications of the 1st respondent.
- The implications of the nomination process followed by the SDP in relation to the appellant’s claims.
- The handling of preliminary objections raised by some respondents during the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal determined that the primary duty of evaluating evidence lies with the trial court. However, in this case, the tribunal's assessment of the qualifications of the 1st respondent was flawed due to inadequate evaluation of evidence presented. The court highlighted that the burden of proof regarding the validity of the nomination process rested with the respondents.
Court Findings
The Court found that:
- The 1st respondent did not demonstrate compliance with mandatory statutory requirements for candidacy, specifically the failure to conduct proper primaries as required by the Electoral Act 2010.
- The tribunal erred in dismissing the appellant's petition without adequately addressing the claims surrounding the absence of a valid primary election.
- No satisfactory evidence was presented by the 1st and 2nd respondents to affirm that a valid primary process occurred, making the purported sponsorship invalid.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal set aside the tribunal’s decision, declaring the 1st respondent unqualified to contest the election due to the absence of valid nomination procedures as outlined in electoral law. Consequently, it ordered INEC to withdraw the certificate of return issued to the 1st respondent and to issue it to the appellant, who was found to have received the highest valid votes.
Significance
This case reinforces the principles of electoral law in Nigeria, particularly regarding the procedural integrity required for the nomination of candidates. It underscores the obligation of political parties to comply with statutory requirements for fair representation and the importance of evidence in electoral disputes. The ruling serves as a reminder to electoral bodies and parties regarding the critical role of primaries in the electoral process.