Lami of the All Progressives Congress defeated her rival from the Peoples Democratic Party, Mrs Agnes Uloko, to represent Ado State Constituency.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, the latter petitioned at the tribunal alleging that the first respondent (Deputy Speaker) was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election for the Ado state constituency.
Sheargu that the votes scored by the first respondent were wasted votes and she should be returned and declared as the winner of the election and issued with a certificate of return.
Delivering judgement, the tribunal chairman Justice Ory-Zik Okeorha held that contrary to the opinion of the petitioner that the issue of certificate forgery is a pre-election matter. The tribunal said that the Electoral Act 2022 listed three (3) grounds upon which an election can be questioned, saying that includes the qualification of the candidate to contest the election as captured in section 134 sub 1 of the Electoral Act 2022, that the election is invalid as a result of noncompliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and that the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful vote cast.
The tribunal extracted two issues for determination. It noted the argument that the first respondent presented a forged certificate to INEC to contest the election, and whether the petitioners on the grounds of their petition have proved their case for the relief sought.
It held that the lone witness called by the petitioner only pleaded without evidence.
She said, “By adducing certificate forgery without presenting documents, the petitioner introduced a criminal element in a civil matter and it is in law that once a criminal element is introduced in a civil proceeding, the evidential standard of proof on the balance of probability or proof moves upon the preponderance of evidence to a more stringent proof beyond reasonable doubt.
“The burden of proof is on him who asserts. The disparity in the name of a candidate in an election is not fatal to the person’s election. It is left to the individual on the nomenclature or designation more so if such individual is an adult.
“The petitioner did not show how the removal of the name ‘Ogenyi’ was suggestive of any criminal intention on the part of the first respondent. Having so failed, the issue of disparity in name is resolved against the petitioner.
“I wish to state unequivocally that having woefully failed to establish their claims and allegation against the first respondent, it will be unthinkable to hold that the petitioners have proved their case or let alone mention any entitlement in their favour.
“All the certificates tendered by the first respondent some of which visibly had her photograph were quite genuine. The Petitioner’s witness failed to adduce evidence that the school or result is false or forged.
“Petitioners failed irredeemably to prove their case against the first respondent. The Petitioner’s lone witness failed to substantiate their case, indeed the quality and weight of the Petitioner’s witness is too weak and porous to sustain the petition.
“I do not find him to be a credible witness. He portrayed himself to be a busybody who ostensibly threw honour to the wind just to please his benefactor.
“In the circumstance, the case of the petition was bound to fail. It is thus, therefore, held that for lacking in merit, substance, and credibility, for being vexatious and frivolous, the petition as constituted is therefore ordered dismissed in its entirety.
“The first respondent is forthwith, affirmed as winner of the election for Ado State Constituency. The Petitioner is to pay a cost of 500,000 to the first respondent as well as 100,000 each to the second and third respondents.”
