…To give reasons Nov 18
The Supreme Court Tuesday upheld the election of Seriake Dickon as governor of Bayelsa State.
The court, in a unanimous decision by a panel of seven Justices, dismissed the appeal by the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last governorship election in the state, Timipre Sylva.
The court upheld the September 22 judgments of the Court of Appeal in deciding the three appeals in which judgments were delivered Tuesday.
The appeals are: SC/843/2016 (by Sylva and APC), SC/844/2016 (by Dickson) and SC/845/2016 (by PDP).
Justice Tanko Muhammad, who read the lead judgment in the appeal by Sylva and his party, dismissed it for “lacking in merit.”
Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who read the lead judgment in the cross-appeal by Dickson, upheld the Appeal Court’s decision in a similar appeal by filed before the lower court by Dickson and dismissed it.
Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, in his lead judgment in the cross-appeal by the PDP, allowed the preliminary objection by Sylva and APC and dismissed the main appeal.
Reasons for the judgments will be given on November 18, 2016.
Sylva and his party had urged the Supreme Court to void the Court of Appeal’s September 22 judgment of which upheld Dickson’s victory in the governorship election.
Sylva and APC argued among others, that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) decision to cancel the December 6, 2015 election in Southern Ijaw local government area of the state and rescheduled it for January 9 this year was a breach of the provision of Section 26 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010.
They also argued that elections had taken place in Southern Ijaw before INEC cancelled it on the ground of “alleged but unproven” irregularities.
Sylva and his party are contending that the Court of Appeal misdirected itself and relied on hearsay evidence to arrive at its conclusion that election did not take place in Southern Ijaw.
The Appeal Court had, in its judgment, upheld the July 26, 2016 judgment of the election tribunal.
It was the Court of Appeal’s view that Sylva failed to prove his allegation that the election held on December 6, 2015 and the supplementary one held on January 9, 2016 were marred by substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
It also held that Sylva failed to prove the allegations of irregularities and corrupt practices raised in his petition.
It noted that while Sylva’s case was against the decision of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to cancel the election held in Southern Ijaw Local Government on December 6, 2016, he failed to lead credible evidence to prove his case.
Sylva had argued that INEC’s decision to cancel the December 6, 2015 election in Southern Ijaw LG and reschedule it for January 9, 2016 was a breach of the provision of Section 26 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010.
On whether election actually took place in Southern Ijaw LG on December 6, 2016, the appellate court held that the prosecution presented contradictory evidence in this regard.
As against Sylva’s argument that INEC’s Resident Electoral Officers (REC) in the state lacked the power to have announced a cancellation of the election, the court held that Section 153(1)(f) of the 1st Schedule to the Constitution allows INEC to delegate its powers to any of its REC.
It held that it was only INEC that could complain about how its REC exercised the so delegated powers.
The court further held that by the evidence led by the appellant ( at the trial tribunal), it was clear that there was no conducive atmosphere under which a peaceful election could have been held in Southern Ijaw, and that the most reasonable thing in that circumstance was to postpone the election, which INEC did.
It held that the burden was on Sylva to lead credible evidence to prove that election actually held in Southern Ijaw, which he failed to do.
“Where a party seeks declaratory reliefs, it is the law that his case succeeds on the strength of his case and not the weakness of the defence.
“A proper interpretation of Section 26(1) of the Electoral Act will accommodate what occurred in Southern Ijaw, where election was marred by violence.
“There cannot be said to have been an election. The decision to conduct the election at a later date can be better interpreted as postponement, not cancellation.
“The appellant, who asserted that there was election in Southern Ijaw LG on December 6, 2015, has the burden to prove the election and not the other way round,” the court said.
The court faulted the decision by Sylva and his party to participate in the rescheduled election when they had protested INEC’s rescheduling of the election.
It held that having participated in the rescheduled January 9, 2016 election, Sylva and his party have lost the right to challenge the propriety or otherwise of INEC’s decision to reschedule the election.
On whether the tribunal was right to have held in favour of the respondents by virtue of the evidence led, the appellate court noted that although Sylva and his party were able to show some instances of irregularities, it was not sufficient to prove that such irregularities substantially tilted the result of the election in favour to the eventual winner.
It also upheld the trial tribunal’s decision to delete names of some unnamed parties from the petition and to also delete some portions of the petition on the grounds that the appellants were unable to show how that decision worked injustice against them.
“With the resolution of all the five issues against the appellants, I am of the view that this Appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties are to bear their costs,” the court held.
The court also dismissed the two cross appeals filed by Dickson and his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) which challenged the competence of Sylva’s candidacy for the election.
