• Home
• Columnist
• Videos
• Artist
  • Musicians
  • Actors
  • Comedians
• Notable Nigerians
• Legend Dies
• Articles
  • Nigeria Articles
• Photos
• Submit Article

Governorship election tribunals in Benue and Akwa Ibom states are to repeat the trial of the petitions against the election of their incumbent governors

The Supreme Court Monday, November 14, 2011, ordered the governorship election petition tribunals sitting in Benue and Akwa Ibom states to retry the cases filed by the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, and its candidates in the two states.

The apex court in the two rulings said election petitions should not be dismissed on mere technicalities. The ruling finally put to rest the controversies as to whether pre-hearing notice should be by way of ex-parte or by a mere letter. The issue had polarised the judiciary and the tribunals giving different interpretations.

The Court, of Appeal did not help matters. Different divisions of the court also gave divergent interpretations. Steve Ugbah, ACN’s governorship candidate in Benue State, and John Akpanudoedehe, his Akwa Ibom counterpart, won appeals brought before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed their petitions on the grounds that the notices of pre-hearing were not properly filed.

Ugbah is challenging the declaration of Gabriel Suswam as the governor of Benue State on the grounds that his (Suswam) election was fraudulent and marred by irregularities, while Akpanudoedehe on the other hand is challenging the victory of Godswill Akpabio, governor of Akwa Ibom State, alleging electoral irregularities.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision read by Dahiru Musdapher , Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, held that the petitions should not have been dismissed on mere technicalities, pointing out that pre-hearing notice could even be done orally. The court stated that the petitions should be heard based on merit, and remitted the petitions back to the tribunals in the states.

Musdapher said the petitions should be determined on their merits and that pre-hearing conference should not be a basis to dismiss petitions. “The justice of the matter is that the appeals be remitted back for hearing on their merits. I don’t know why judges should on the basis of pre-hearing conference alone dismiss a petition without hearing it on its merit. Matters must be decided on their merits,” he said.

He stated further that there was no difference between a letter or ex-parte motion, as he insisted that matters should be decided only on merits, not technicalities. “It is too early for me to start losing my head. What is the difference between a letter or ex-parte motion? Everybody is watching us. I am begging you in the name of justice, matters should be decided on their merits and not technicalities,” Musdapher said.

He maintained that it was the responsibility of the court to handle cases before it based on its merits not technicalities, as he warned that the easy way out of cases should not be condoned by the judiciary. “They just want to take an easy way out to finish the matter.  We will say no to it. Democracy is the number of people who vote for A or B; where is justice after the tribunal itself issued the pre-hearing notice?  The same tribunal has fixed hearing and after some days, somebody now brought an application for the dismissal of the petition, where is the justice in that situation?  Let justice be done,” the CJN said.