The Supreme Court monday gave reasons for affirming the electoral victories of the governors of Oyo State, Senator Abiola Ajimobi; Akwa Ibom, Mr. Emmanuel Udom; Yobe, Alhaji Ibrahim Gaidam; and that of Delta State, Senator Ifeanyi Okowa, in the April 11, 2015 governorship polls.

The reasons were similar in nature and included failure to prove the allegations contained in the petitions and placing reliance on evidence that did not cover the whole states.

Giving the reasons for the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on February 2, the seven-member panel of justices of the court, headed by Justice Walter Onnoghen, said the appeals against the elections of three of the governors lacked merit.

However, in the case of Akwa Ibom, the governor was the appellant and his appeal was allowed while the judgment of the Court of Appeal which nullified his election was set aside.

On the appeal by Alhaji Rahidi Ladoja of the Accord Party challenging Ajimobi’s victory in the election conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Oyo State, the court held that the appeal was dismissed for constituting an abuse of court process and lacking in merit.

The court, in its reason for the February 2 judgment said Ladoja and his party did not prove the allegation of misconduct and gross violation of the Electoral Act which they claimed marred the election that produced Ajimobi as governor of Oyo State.

The court also held that criminal allegations raised by Ladoja in his petition were not proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.

Giving reasons for setting aside the judgment of the Akwa Ibom State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal and that of the Court of Appeal, in a petition filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Mr. Umana Umana, the court held that the petitioners, who were appellants before the court, could not prove allegations of criminal acts against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.

The court also stated that allegations of disenfranchisement must be proved polling unit by polling unit, which the seven-member panel of justices of the Supreme Court said was not proved by the petitioners.

The court also held that there was wrong reliance on the petitioners’ witness number 48 by the lower courts to decide that there was disenfranchisement of voters in 18 out of the 32 local government areas in Akwa Ibom State, even though the said witness admitted that he was not at these polling units in the said councils at the time of the poll.

The court further held that the generalisation that there was anarchy in Akwa Ibom State during the poll was wrong, because the Nigeria Police Force’s report of the poll largely contradicted that of the witnesses which were relied upon by the lower courts.

Justice Centus Nweze, who presented the reasons of the court held that, “the two lower courts metamorphosed into an inquisitory forum shopping for skirmishes, even though there was no demonstration in court”.

The Supreme Court held that the judgments by the tribunal and the Appeal Court were not consistent with the law and were accordingly set aside.

In the court’s reasons for affirming the election of Governor Gaidam of Yobe State, it held that the appellants failed to prove the criminal allegations levelled against the governor, adding also that the Yobe State Election Petition Tribunal erred.

Reasons of the Supreme Court’s judgment in upholding the election of Okowa of Delta State included, among others, the inability of the petitioners to prove allegations of irregularities, malpractices and violations of the Electoral Act, which they claimed marred the April 11, 2015, and through which Okowa emerged winner.

Click here to read from source.