How Imo Governorship Election Verdict Generates Judicial Crisis Olusegun Awe Obe

Describes the Supreme Court judgment on the 2019 Imo State governorship election as a miracle that overthrew all known judicial precedents

Seventy candidates sponsored by seventy different political parties contested the governorship election in Imo State held on March, 9, 2019. By the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) , each of these parties earned votes. The parties that scored significant number of votes are as follows: Emeka Ihedioha of PDP- 273,404 votes; Nwosu Uche of Action Alliance (AA)-190,364 votes; Senator Ifeanyi Ararume Godwin of APGA-114,676 votes; Senator Hope Odidika Uzodinma of APC- 96,458 votes.

From the INEC Electoral Form EC8D, the total number of registered voters in Imo State is 2,221,008 voters. Total number of accredited votes cast was 739,485 votes. Rejected votes were 25,130 votes.Total valid votes cast in the election was recorded as 714,355 votes. It is evident from this official result declaration that the voter turnout was very poor throughout the state.

After the declaration of Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha as winner of the election by INEC, nine (9) political parties brought petitions before the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.

After exchange of pleadings, six petitioners withdrew their petitions having only three (3) that went to trial.

Uche Nwosu of Action Alliance (AA) claimed that there should be a run-off between him and Emeka Ihedioha because he came second and that Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha did not obtain the mandatory 25% of the votes cast in 2/3rds of the local governments.

There are 27 local governments in Imo State and 2/3rds of it is 18.

At the trial, however, Uche Nwosu failed to establish this allegation, hence his petition was dismissed.

Senator Ifeanyi Ararume who came third in the election was the only witness in his petition with his allegations bordering on irregularities, non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and Guidelines and over voting that occurred across the various polling units and 305 electoral wards in Imo State.

Because he called no witnesses to prove those allegations and not being a spirit who could be everywhere at the same time, his petition failed and was accordingly dismissed as he could not prove his allegations.

In all the petitions, no other petitioner made a case for wrongful compilation of results by INEC except Senator Hope Uzodinma.

Also, no other petitioner claimed that votes were not collated or that votes were excluded in the process of collation at the various wards in Imo State except Senator Hope Uzodinma and the All Progressive Congress (APC) even though they took the fourth position in the election.

In the petition he presented, the case of Hope Uzodinma was that INEC omitted or failed to record or reckon with votes due to him from 388 polling units cut across the various local governments and electoral wards in Imo State as can been seen from pages 9 – 27 of his petition.

In paragraph 9 of his petition, the petitioners pleaded thus:

“The petitioners shall rely on the excluded result as shown on the face of the result Forms EC8B of the ward collation centers”

The exclusion of the results therefore was pleaded to have occurred at the ward collation centers which are 305 in number in Imo State.

At the trial, no ward collation agent was called to show that at the collation centre, results were brought from the 388 polling units where the alleged exclusion took place and INEC refused to accept or collate them.

The petitioner rather called 28 polling unit agents who came to identify some of the results tendered by the petitioner from the bar. All the electoral documents from Forms EC8A – EC8E were tendered from the bar and thus dumped on the court without anybody giving evidence correlating the contents of the result forms with the tabulation done by the petitioner himself.

Each of the 18 polling unit agents under cross-examination, manifested ignorance of the contents of the documents and never convinced anybody of being present in their claimed polling units.

These witnesses were called to testify in respect of the disputed 388 polling units where the petitioner tendered what he called Pink Copies of result sheets.

INEC had in their reply to the petition disowned those result sheets and averred emphatically that no results were generated from those polling units as elections in those polling units were cancelled by presiding officers as a result of violence, over voting, snatching of electoral materials etc.

INEC stated that any result from those polling units presented by any of the candidates, in this case, the petitioners, must be fake.

These polling unit agents were called to testify that the election took place in those polling units but when confronted with the purported result sheets tendered by the petitioners, each of the witnesses admitted as follows:

The names and signatures of the Presiding Officers were not well found on those results.

The names and signatures of other party agents did not appear on the result sheets, neither could they mention even one party agent of the other political parties in those booths.

The result sheets do not contain the total number of ballot papers used and number of ballot papers unused or invalid. The scores of political parties are not clear on the face of the documents.

It was on account of this and many other material contradictions that the Elections Petition Tribunal found as a fact that the evidence adduced by these 28 polling unit agents of the petitioner has been so contradicted under cross-examination and rendered so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal or court can ever rely on them for any purpose whatsoever.

The petitioner called 27 local government collation agents who tendered only the local government collation results which were not in issue. Local government collation result sheets contain only a summary of results from the various wards in each local government and do not contain polling unit results.

Each of these Local Government collation agents of the petitioner admitted not being present at the polling unit where the purported results are said to have emanated. They also admitted being absent at the ward collation centers where results from the polling units were collated. The tribunal therefore found their evidence as hearsay and completely unhelpful in resolving the issue of whether there was exclusion of results at the ward collation centers or not.

The court therefore rejected the evidence of these witnesses before making its judgment.

The 1st petitioner – Senator Hope Uzodinma testified as PW11 and gave a global evidence of what transpired in the polling units across the state, he also tendered some of the results sheets.

Under cross-examination, he admitted being present in his polling unit at Omuma only. He claimed that his evidence on the 388 polling units and indeed in other polling units across the state are based on what he was told by his agents.

The next witness who also gave a global evidence but admitted not being present and as such not having witnessed the election or collation in the 388 polling units was one Cyprian Okechukwu .C. Akaolisa – PW51. His evidence is the same as that of the 1st Petitioner – Hope Uzodinma as both of them reproduced the entire petition as their evidence.

He admitted under cross-examination, just like the 1st Petitioner – Hope Uzodinma (PW11), that he did not witness voting or collation of results in any of these 388 polling units. His duty post was only in the State Collation Office, Owerri.

-Obe writes on behalf of Eminent National Leaders of Nigerian Civil Society & Third Force Movement