Administration of Electoral Justice in Nigeria

ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTORAL JUSTICE IN NIGERIA

Analysis of Election Petition Tribunal for the 2019 General Elections DISCLAIMER

This document has been produced by Kimpact Development Initiative to provide information on the 2019 Election Petition Tribunals in Nigeria. The report is focused on the Presidential and Governorship Election Petition Tribunals across the States of Nigeria. Any reports on the Senatorial, House of Representative and the States House of Assembly Election Petition Tribunals are for reference purposes. Kimpact hereby certifies that all the views expressed in this document accurately reflect the analytical views of the information and data gathered from the Tribunals through the Election Petition Tribunal monitors, which were from reliable sources and verified. While reasonable precaution have been taken in preparing this report, Kimpact and International Foundation for Electoral System (IFES) shall take no responsibility for errors or any views expressed herein for actions taken because of information provided in this report.

2 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Kimpact Development Initiative (KDI) is grateful to the International Foundation for Electoral System, without whose support this work could not have taken off; and all her staff for the technical support given to us in the course of this project. KDI thank the President of the Court of Appeal for graciously permitting us to monitor the Election Petition Tribunals; with the permission, it was possible to get information from the secretariats of the Tribunals all over Nigeria. KDI appreciates all our Monitors; without the work done by you all, this work could not have been successful. The comparative analysis done in this work was only made possible by the 2015 General Election in Nigeria Compendium of Petitions, produced by the Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room. KDI is most grateful to our Review Committee Members and members of our Focus Group for graciously accepting the task of providing direction for the report. We are also grateful to all Stakeholders in Lagos, Owerri and Kano, you all did wonderfully well. TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 9

LIST OF FIGURES 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 24

PART ONE

1.1 INTRODUCTION 27

1.2 Aim and Objectives of the Election Petition Tribunal 29 Monitoring Project

1.3 Election Petition Tribunal in Nigeria 30

1.4 Election Petition 31

1.5 Presentation of an Election Petition 32

PART TWO

2.1 Methodology 35

2.2 What we monitored 36

2.2.1 Conduct of the Tribunal’s Panel Members (Judges) 37

2.2.2 Observance of the Tribunal Practice Direction 38

2.2.3 Fair hearing 38

2.2.4 Tribunal Judgment 39

2.2.5 Judgment 40

PART THREE

3.1 Key Findings of 2019 Election Petition Tribunal 42 Monitoring 3.2 Analysis of Petition 116 3.2.1 Grounds Adduced for Petition at the Governorship 116 Election Tribunals 3.2.2 Judgement of the Tribunal for Governorship Election 118 Petitions 3.2.3 Analysis of the reasons adduced for the judgments 120 delivered by the Governorship Election Tribunal 3.3 Assessment of Election Petition Tribunals across the Thirty-Six States and the Federal Capital Territory of the 122 Federal Republic of Nigeria

3.3.1 Analysis of the Conduct of the Judges 122

3.3.2 Number of Judges and Gender Disaggregation 123

3.3.3 Number of Secretaries and Gender Disaggregation 124

3.4 Tribunal Assessment 126

3.4.1 Number of Hours Spent at Tribunal 126

3.4.2 Size of Audience in the Court Room 127

3.4.3 Assessment of Behavior of the Audience, the Press and 128 the Lawyers in the Course of Proceedings at the Tribunals 3.4.4 Assessment of the condition of the courtroom and its environment in 35 States and the Federal Capital Territory 129 of the Federation 3.4.5 Assessment of Tension, Unrest and Security Issues 135

PART FOUR

4.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTION PETITIONS 138 FILED AFTER THE 2015 AND 2019 GENERAL ELECTIONS 4.1.1 Total Number of Petitions filed Across36 States and the 138 FCT in 2015 and 2019 4.1.2 Comparative Assessment of Governorship Petition Filing 138 Pattern in 2015 and 2019

4.1.3 Pattern of acceptance of the ballots in 2015 and 2019 140

4.1.4 Breakdown of the Governorship petition filed by the6 geopolitical Zones at the various tribunals in 2015 and 2019 141 respectively 4.2 Comparative Analysis of Grounds for Petitions in the 142 Governorship Election Tribunal of 2019 & 2015

4.3 Comparative Analysis of Governorship Tribunal Judgment 143 in 2019 & 2015 4.4 Comparative Analysis of the Reasons Adduced for the 145 Judgment at the Governorship Tribunals in 2015 and 2019 4.5 Pattern of Governorship Election Petitions filed by Political 146 Parties 4.6 Comparative Analysis of Pattern of Governorship Election 148 Petitions filed by Political Parties in 2015 and 2019

4.7 Comparative Analysis of petitions filed by Constant Parties 150 to the 2015 and 2019 Governorship EPT

PART FIVE

5.1Breakdown of the petition filed for cases at the various 153 tribunals in 2015 and 2019 respectively

5.2Summary of All the Petitions Filed at the Tribunals by Geo- 154 Political Zones

5.3 Analysis of Petitions filed against Senatorial, Federal Constituencies and State Constituencies Elections of the 2019 155 General Elections 5.3.1 Senatorial Election Petition Tribunal 155

5.3.2 Comparative Analysis 156

5.3.3 House of Representatives Election Petition Tribunal 156

5.3.4 Comparative Analysis 157

5.3.5 State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal 158

5.3.6 Comparative Analysis 159

5.4Comparative Analysis of the Judgment Delivered at the 2015 and 2019 Election Petition Tribunals in the cases of Senatorial, 160 Federal Constituencies and State Constituencies Petitions

5.4.1 Senatorial Election Petition Tribunal 160

5.4.2 House of Representatives Election Petition Tribunal 161

5.4.3 State Houses of Assembly (SHoA) Election Petition 162 Tribunal

PART SIX 6.1 APPEALS ARISING FROM THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNALS AND THE 165 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TRIBUNAL

6.2Comparative Analysis of the Appeals filed in2015 and 2019 167 PART SEVEN

Recommendations 178

ANNEX 187

8 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: HARVEST OF CASES 42 Table 3.2: List of Cases Arising from the presidential Election 47 Petition Tribunal Table 3.3: List of Cases Arising from the Governorship 49 Election Petition Tribunal Table 3.4: List of Cases Arising from the 2019 Senatorial 63 Election Petition Tribunal Table 3.5: Analysis of Grounds for Governorship Petition 116

Table 3.6: Percentage Analysis of Grounds for Governorship 117 Petition

Table 3.7: Analysis of Judgment of the Governorship EPT 119 Table 3.8: Analysis of Reasons Adduce for Judgment in 121 Governorship EPT Table 3.9: Conduct of Judges 122

Table 3.10: Gender Disaggregation of Judges 124

Table 3.11: Gender Disaggregation of Tribunal Secretaries 125 Table 3.12: Assessment of the Number of Hours Spent at the 126 Tribunal Table 3.13: Assessment of the Size of Audience at the Tribunal 127

Table 3.14: Assessment of Behavioral Pattern at the Tribunal 128

Table 3.15: Assessment of Tribunal Facilities 130

Table 3.16: Assessment of Tribunals’ Accessibility to PWDs 131

Table 3.18: Assessment of the availability of PAS in Zones 133

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 9 Table 3.19: Assessment of the Availability of Air Conditioning 134

Table 3.20: Assessment of Tension, Unrest and security 136

Table 4.1: Comparative Assessment of Governorship Petition 139 Filing Pattern in 2015 and 2019

Table 4.2: First Ballot Victory in the Governorship Election 140

Table 4.3: Comparative Breakdown of Governorship Petition 141 by Zones Table 4.4: Percentage Distribution of Grounds for 143 Governorship Petition in 2015 and 2019 Table 4.5: Comparative Analysis of Governorship Judgment 144 in 2015 and 2019 Table 4.6: Comparative Analysis of Reasons Adduced for 145 Judgment in 2015 and 2018 Governorship EPT Table 4.7: Analysis of Petition filed by Political Parties in 2019 146 Table 4.8: Analysis of Petition filed by Political Parties against 148 the Governorship election of 2015 and 2019 Table 4.9: Comparative Analysis of petitions filed by Constant 150 Parties to the 2015 and 2019 Governorship EPT Table 5.1: Comparative Analysis of Breakdown of Petitions 153 filed in 2015 and 2019

Table 5.2: Summary of All the Petitions Filed at the Tribunals 154 by Geo-Political Zones

Table 6.1: Preliminary summary of Appeals by States and 166 Court of Appeal Decisions Table 6.2: Summary of Court Decision on Appeals 167

Table 6.3: SUMMARY OF CASES APPEALED 168

10 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Summary of 2019 General Election Petition 26 Findings

Figure 3.2: Summary of 2019 Governorship Election Petition 27 Findings

Figure 3.3: Analysis of Grounds for Governorship Petition 118

Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of Judgment of the 119 Tribunal for Governorship Election Petitions Figure 3.5: Percentage distribution of the Court’s reason on 121 the decision reached in Governorship EPT Figure 3.6: Percentage distribution of conduct of the judges 122 across the Tribunals in 35 States and FCT in Nigeria, 2019 Figure 3.7: Number of Judges in Governorship and 123 Presidential Election Tribunals Figure 3.8: Percentage distribution of Judges disaggregated by gender across the 26 States Governorship Tribunals and 124 the Federal Capital Territory Figure 3.9: Percentage distribution of Secretaries disaggregated by gender across the 36 States Tribunals and 125 the Federal Capital Territory Figure 3.10: Percentage distribution of the Average Length of period spent during Judgment in 35 States Tribunal and 126 FCT Figure 3.11: Percentage distribution of the average size of 127 audience across 35 States Tribunal and FCT Figure 3.12: Percentage distribution of the behavioral pattern in the courtroom across the 36 States Tribunal and 129 FCT

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 11 Figure 3.13: Percentage distribution of the court room 130 conditions across the 35 States Tribunal and FCT Figure 3.14: Frequency distribution of the court room accessibility to PWD’S in the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political 131 zones in Nigeria Figure 3.15: Frequency distribution of the presence of interpreters in the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones in 133 Nigeria Figure 3.16: Frequency distribution of the Public Address System availabilityin the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones 134 in Nigeria Figure 3.17: Frequency distribution of the Air Condition availability in the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones in 135 Nigeria

Figure 3.18: Frequency distribution of tension/unrest/ security issues in the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones in 136 Nigeria Figure 4.1: Total Number of Petitions filed Across36 States 138 and the FCT in 2015 and 2019

Figure 4.2: Total Number of Governorship Petitions filed in 139 2015 and 2019

Figure 4.3: Frequency distribution on Status of the 140 Governorship petition filedin the36 Tribunals in Nigeria

Figure 4.4: Frequency distribution of first ballot victory 141 Figure 4.5: Frequency distribution of the Governorship petition filed by the6 geopolitical zones at the various 142 Tribunals in 2015 and 2019 respectively Figure 4.6: Percentage comparison of the Governorship 143 petition filedin2015 and 2019

12 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 4.7: Frequency distribution of the Governorship 144 Tribunal JudgmentIn 2019 & 2015

Figure 4.8: Frequency distribution of the Governorship 146 Tribunal Reasons for Judgment In 2019 & 2015

Figure 4.9: shows analysis of petitions filed by political 148 parties in 2019

Figure 4.10: shows political parties analysis for 2015 and 150 2019 Governorship EPT

Figure 4.11: Shows Comparative Analysis of petitions filed 151 by Constant Parties to the 2015 and 2019 Governorship EPT

Figure 5.1: Frequency distribution of the petitions filed at 153 the various tribunals in 2015 and 2019 respectively

Figure 5.2: Frequency distribution of the petition filed at 154 the tribunal by geo-political zones

Figure 5.3: Analysis of Grounds for 2019 Senate Election 155 Petition Tribunal

Figure 5.4: Comparative Analysis of Grounds for 2015 and 156 2019 Senate Election Petition Tribunals

Figure 5.5: Analysis of Grounds for 2019 House of 157 Representative Election Petition Tribunals

Figure 5.6: Comparative Analysis of Grounds for 2015 and 158 2019 House of Representative Election Petition Tribunals

Figure 5.7: Analysis of Grounds for 2019 State House of 159 Assembly Election Petition Tribunals

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 13 Figure 5.8: Comparative Analysis of Grounds for 2015 and 160 2019 State House of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal

Figure 5.9: Comparative Analysis of Senate Judgement for 161 2015 and 2019 Election Petition Tribunal

Figure 5.10: Comparative Analysis of House of Representative 162 Judgement for 2015 and 2019 EPT

Figure 5.11: Comparative analysis of SHA Judgement for 163 2015 and 2019 EPT

Figure 1 .6: Bar chart representation showing analysis of the Court of Appeal judgement on Appeals from the Election 167 Petition Tribunal

Figure 6.2 Bar Chat Representation Showing Comparative 168 Analysis of Judgement in 2015 and 2019

14 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) ABBREVIATION ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution Anor Another EPT Election Petition Tribunal EPTM Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring ETMs Election Tribunal Monitors CJN Chief Justice of Nigeria FCT Federal Capital Territory FIDA FederacionInternacional De Abogadas INEC Independent National Electoral Commission IPAC Inter-Party Advisory Council JUSUN Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria NBA Nigerian Bar Association NOA National Orientation Agency Ors Others PWD Persons Living With Disability

LIST OF POLITICAL PARTIES

ANRP Abundant Nigeria Renewal Party A Accord AA Action Alliance ADP Action Democratic Party APP Action Peoples Party AAP Advanced Allied Party ACD Advanced Congress of Democrats ANDP Advanced Nigeria Democratic Party APDA Advanced Peoples Democratic Alliance AAC African Action Congress ADC African Democratic Congress APA African Peoples Alliance

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 15 ABP All Blending Party AGAP All Grand Alliance Party AGA All Grassroots Alliance APC All Progressives Congress APGA All Progressives Grand Alliance AUN Alliance for a United Nigeria AD Alliance For Democracy ANN Alliance for New Nigeria ANP Alliance National Party ASD Alliance of Social Democrats ACPN Allied Congress Party of Nigeria APM Allied Peoples Movement APN Alternative Party of Nigeria BNPP Better Nigeria Progressive Party CAP Change Advocacy Party CNP Change Nigeria Party C4C Coalition for Change COP Congress of Patriots DA Democratic Alternative DPC Democratic Peoples Congress DPP Democratic Peoples Party FJP Freedom and Justice Party FRESH Fresh Democratic Party GDPN Grassroots Development Party of Nigeria GPN Green Party of Nigeria HDP Hope Democratic Party ID Independent Democrats JMPP Justice Must Prevail Party KP Kowa Party LP Labour Party LPN Legacy Party of Nigeria LM Liberation Movement

16 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) MAJA Mass Action Joint Alliance MMN Masses Movement of Nigeria MPN Mega Party of Nigeria MDP Modern Democratic Party MRDD Movement for the Restoration and Defence of Democracy NAC National Action Council NCP National Conscience Party NDLP National Democratic Liberty Party NIP National Interest Party NRM National Rescue Movement NUP National Unity Party NGP New Generation Party of Nigeria NNPP New Nigeria Peoples Party NPM New Progressive Movement NCMP Nigeria Community Movement Party NDCP Nigeria Democratic Congress Party NEPP Nigeria Elements Progressive Party NFD Nigeria for Democracy NPC Nigeria Peoples Congress PDC People For Democratic Change PT People’s Trust PCP Peoples Coalition Party PDM Peoples Democratic Movement PDP Peoples Democratic Party PPN Peoples Party of Nigeria PPP Peoples Progressive Party PRP Peoples Redemption Party PPA Progressive Peoples Alliance PPC Providence People’s Congress RBNP Re-build Nigeria Party RAP Reform and Advancement Party RP Restoration Party of Nigeria SNC Save Nigeria Congress

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 17 SDP Social Democratic Party SPN Socialist Party of Nigeria SNP Sustainable National Party UDP United Democratic Party UP United Patriots UPC United Peoples Congress UPP United Progressive Party UPN Unity Party of Nigeria WTPN We The People Nigeria YES Yes Electorates Solidarity YDP Young Democratic Party YPP Young Progressive Party YP Youth Party ZLP Zenith Labour Party

18 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) ABOUT KIMPACT

We inspire citizen-led democratic and economic development that is anchored on the principles of participation, data-driven advocacy, strong democratic institution, and public policies.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 19 About

impact Development Initiative (KDI) is a DI has worked hand-in-hand with both youth-focused nonprofit, nonpartisan, Local and International bodies to pro- Knongovernmental organization that ad- Kmote peaceful election, active citizen vances good governance, democratic rights, engagement in democratic processes, reforms public policy, public engagement and sus- and sustainable economy. We hinge our ad- tainable economy. We do this by building in- vocacy, reforms, policy advancement and formed and active citizens through capacity democratic supports on the principle of social development, advancing public policies, data cohesion. KDI has administrative structures driven advocacy and reforms that gives a more and partners in all the 36 states of Nigeria and supportive environment for citizen-led devel- across other West African countries. opment. Since March 2014, Our Thematic Areas

20 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) f

OUR MISSION To inspire citizen-led democratic and economic development that is anchored on the principles of participation, data-driven advocacy, strong democratic institution, and public policies.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 21 About

he International Foundation for Elector- strong democratic institutions empower citizens al Systems (IFES) supports citizens’ right to to have a voice in the way they are governed. Since Tparticipate in free and fair elections. Our 1987, IFES has worked in over 45 countries from independent expertise strengthens electoral developing democracies. As the global leader in systems and builds local capacity to deliver sus- democracy promotion, we advance good gover- tainable solutions. Our vision is a world in which nance and democratic rights by:

EMPOWERMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT Empowering the underrepresented to Providing technical assistance to election of- participate in the political process. ficials

RESEARCH Applying field-based research to improve the electoral cycle.

INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (IFES) IN NIGERIA

ince 1998, the INTERNATIONAL FOUNDA- dependent National Electoral Commission (INEC) TION FOR ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (IFES) has and the State Independent Electoral Commissions, Sworked to strengthen the capacity of Nige- and other local partners, to promote credible, in- ria election management bodies, namely the In- clusive and transparent elections at national and

22 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) local levels.

IFES’ key areas of work in Nigeria have been:

Local and national election administration.

Voter education

Electoral security assistance

Inclusion of traditionally marginalized groups in electoral processes

Electoral alternative dispute resolution processes

Techical support

Electoral violence monitoring and peace building

Political finance

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 23 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Petitions against the outcome of the 2019 governorship elections were filed in26 States while the remaining three states accepted the results of the governorship elections on the First Ballot“.

“811 petitions were filed throughout the36 States of the Federation and the FCT in the Presidential, governorship, Senate, Federal and State Constituencies’ 2019 election“.

The election process in Nigeria from inception The Election Tribunal Monitors (ETMs) attended has been fraught with irregularities like those and observed Tribunal sessions; and submitted that are highlighted in Section 1(138)(a)-(d) of periodic reports of their monitoring activities. the Electoral Act, Laws of the Federation 2010 (as The issues tracked included, but not limited to amended). When the electoral process is heavily the grounds upon which petitions were filed laden with irregularities, issues of legitimacy and the judgment delivered by the Tribunals, begin to arise. In order to resolve the issues the resources available to the Tribunals for of legitimacy, resolution powers in election the discharge of their duties, conduciveness matters are vested in the specialized court – of the venues, the process employed by the Election Petition Tribunal– established pursuant Tribunals, including good practices in fair to Section 285 of the Constitution. Election hearing and substantial compliance with the Petition Tribunal (EPT) is a key component of enabling laws, timeliness of proceedings, the the legitimacy of the whole electoral process role of INEC, security of Tribunals, witnesses, in Nigeria. In order to determine if the Election litigants and their counsel, openness and Tribunal is a true arbiter in election infraction access including the cost of justice. From the matters, Kimpact Development Initiative (KDI) available Data and information gathered in the with the support of International Foundation course of the EPT project, KDI found that three for Electoral System (IFES) monitored the EPT petitions were filed against the return of the process to ascertain the tribunal’s compliance incumbent President of the Country. While one to EPT guidelines, the Constitution, Electoral of the petitioners withdrew their petition, the Act 2010 as amended and other extant laws and other two were dismissed by the Presidential policies. KDI monitored the Election Petition Election Tribunal. Being dissatisfied with the Tribunal through trained monitors using decision of the Tribunal, both petitioners filed quantitative and qualitative in-depth analysis. appeals at the Supreme Court, which has

24 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) appellate jurisdiction over presidential election not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes matter(s) in accordance with the provision cast at the elections; this stood at %24. The of the Constitution of the Federal Republic Tribunal dismissed %65.7 and struck out %32.8 of Nigeria, 1999. The Supreme Court, after of the 67 petitions filed against governorship reviewing the decision of the lower court in elections. The implication of this is that, only one both cases dismissed both appeals for lacking of the 67 petitioners succeeded at the Tribunals; in merit. KDI further gathered that governorship (Zamfara’s EPT/ZM/Gov/2019/3 – Bala Bello elections took place in 29 out of the 36 States of Maru v Mukhtar Sheu Idris), though his win had the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The remaining no benefits to him as events had been overtaken 7 States had their governorship elections taken by a Supreme Court judgment in relation to the off the general election cycle as a result of matter. Comparative analysis showed that there previous irregularities that were resolved and was huge increase in the number of petitions determined by the Appeal and Supreme Court filed at the2019 EPT, as opposed to the number of Nigeria. Though governorship elections took filed in2015 . Analysis showed that South-South place in 29 States of the Federation, petitions had the highest number of petitions filed at against the outcome of the 2019 governorship both the 2015 and 2019 Election Tribunals at elections were filed in26 States while the 195 and 183 respectively. Next is the South- remaining three States accepted the results of East with 143 and 174 respectively. North-West the governorship elections on the First Ballot. however had a huge leap in the number of One State - Jigawa accepted all the results of petitions filed – from39 petitions in 2015 to the 2019 general election on the first ballot, 145 in 2019. The data gathered showed that meaning that there was no Election Tribunal the All Progressive Congress filed the highest sitting at all, in the State. 811 petitions were filed number of petitions against the outcome of throughout the 36 States of the Federation and the 2019 governorship elections, followed the FCT in the Presidential, governorship, Senate, by the Peoples Democratic Party. It was also Federal and State Constituencies’ 2019 election. discovered that only five political parties stayed The 26 States that went to the Election Tribunal true to going to the Election Tribunal in 2015 challenging the outcome of the governorship and 2019; others either went in 2015 and stayed elections in their various states filed 67 petitions. away in 2019 or did not bother with the EPT in Analysis showed that Non-Compliance with 2015 but chose EPT adjudication in resolving the Electoral Act, Corrupt Practices and Over- their grievances in 2019. Data gathered Voting had the highest percentage – %42 of the showed that the premises assigned to the EPT grounds upon which petitions was filed. Next to were not conducive enough. Although all the this is the allegation that “the respondent was Tribunals were connected to the electric grid,

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 25 only a few had stand-by generator for back-up. of the appeals assessed were dismissed by the Transcribers and recorders were not available to Court of Appeal for lacking in merit, while the the Tribunals. Only a handful had public address remaining 1 was struck out when the appellant system for ease of conversation at the Tribunals. withdrew his appeal. Dissatisfied by the decision Most of the Tribunals were neither accessible of the Court of Appeal, 20 petitioners, whose to persons living with disabilities (PWD) nor petitions were assessed, went on to file appeals were interpreters and sign language experts at the Supreme Court. Out of these 20 (twenty) made available for PWDs. Having concluded appeals, 19 (nineteen) were dismissed by the the Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring, KDI Supreme Court while the remaining 1 (one) followed parties that were aggrieved by the was allowed. The final decisions of the Supreme decisions of the Election Tribunals to the appeal Court brought all the 2019 Election Petition courts. KDI was able to assess 28 Governorship cases to a close. appeals that were filed at the Court of Appeal.27

26 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) INTRODUCTION

“Election Petition Tribunal in Nigeria is the creation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (herein after re- PART ONE ferred to as the Constitution). It is the body established to settle election disputes. By virtue of Section 239 and Section 285 of the Constitution“.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 27 The Federal Republic of Nigeria, a sovereign referred to as the Independent National state is divided into thirty-six (36) states and Electoral Commission (INEC); it is set up by a Federal Capital Territory37. Nigeria has three virtue of Section 1(153)(f) of the Constitution. distinct arms to her governance; they are: the INEC has the constitutional responsibility Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. of organizing elections to the offices of the The Executive is tasked with executing the law. President and Vice President; the Senate and the Executive power is vested in the government House of Representatives; Governor and Deputy led by a president38, while the 36 states have a Governor; and the State Houses of Assembly. governor each39, at the helm of their affairs. The The third Schedule to the Constitution, in its legislature of the Federation40 is responsible Part 1 (F), Section 15(a) – (f), made provisions for law making and serves as a check on the for the duties and powers given to Independent executive. The legislature has 3 tiers (Senate, National Electoral Commission. Section 15(a) House of Representatives and the State Houses provides: of Assemblies41 for each of the States). The judiciary has the responsibility of interpreting The Commission shall have power to - organize, the law and adjudicating on disputes between undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the states, government and individuals. the President and Vice-President, the Governor and Nigeria went in search of democratic stability as Deputy Governor of a State, and to the membership of soon as it attained Independence in 1960; and the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House there has been four Republican Governments of Assembly of each State of the Federation since Independence, where the leadership of the nation was determined through election The election process in Nigeria from inception processes. The current republican government, has been fraught with irregularities like those which is the fourth, commenced in 1999. In order that are highlighted in Section 1(138)(a)-(d) of to determine the leadership of the Federation, the Electoral Act, Laws of the Federation 2010 the States and composition of the Legislature, (as amended). When the electoral process general elections are held every four (4) years is heavily laden with irregularities, issues of in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 legitimacy begin to crop up42. In order to resolve Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. the issues of legitimacy, adjudication powers in The body fostered with the responsibility of election matters are vested in the specialized conducting these elections is known and court – Election Tribunal – established pursuant to Section 285 of the Constitution. 37 Section 1( 3) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 38 Section 2( & )1( 130) of the Constitution It is important to note that the only place to 39 Section 2( & )1( 176) of the Constitution 40 Section 47 of the Constitution 42 Benson Olugbuo (PhD) “Election Petition Tribunal in Nigeria”, a paper presented 41 Section 90 of the Constitution at the Cascade Training of EPT Monitors in Abuja on August 2019 ,21

28 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) approach when there is any matter of infraction Constituencies Elections. Comparative analysis during the elections is the Election Tribunal and of the decisions of the Election Tribunal in 2015 the best way is to file a petition addressed to and 2019 was also carried out. Part six discussed the Election Tribunal, requesting for a hearing the appeals arising from the presidential and with the Tribunal on issues of infraction during governorship election petition tribunals at both the election. Other matters that are regarded as the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. A pre-election matters and electoral offences are comparative analysis of the appeals from 2015 tried in the regular courts. and 2019 election petitions were made. Part The Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring seven made some recommendations for legal Project is aimed at monitoring the proceedings and electoral reforms towards good democratic of the Tribunal; identify the lacunas in the laws governance in the nation, Nigeria. and the challenges faced by the tribunals in the administration of electoral justice and 1.2 Aim and Objectives of the Election make recommendations for, not just legal but Petition Tribunal Monitoring Project also electoral reforms. Part one introduced the Aim Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring project, its The 2019 Election Petition Tribunal (EPT) aim and objectives, Election Tribunals in Nigeria, Monitoring project is targeted towards keeping what election petition is and the manner in which track of the EPTs’ processes and proceedings it is presented. Part two of this work discussed through trained monitors to measure democratic what Kimpact monitored at the Tribunal and development in Nigeria and ascertain the level the methodology employed in carrying out of compliance by the Tribunals with extant laws the project. Part three showed the key findings and policies for the purposes of electoral and and the analysis of the data gathered from the legal reforms in the administration of electoral Presidential and Governorship Election Tribunals justice system in Nigeria. in the course of the project. Part four compared the analysis of the findings from 2015 and 2019 Objectives Governorship Election Petition Tribunals, as well 11. Build the capacity of the Election Tribunal as the pattern of filing of petitions by political Monitors (ETMs) by training them on best parties and the six geo-political zones of the methodology to effectively monitor the nation. Part five summarized all the petitions Election Petition Tribunals established to filed in both 2015 and 2019 election year and address challenges arising from elections analyzed some of the petitions filed against the 22. Deploy trained ETMs across the 36 States Senatorial, Federal Constituencies and State and the Federal Capital Territory to keep

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 29 track of the EPTs processes and proceedings original jurisdiction to hear and determine any to ascertain the courts compliance to EPT question as to whether - guidelines, the 1999 Constitution, the Any person has been validly elected to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended and other office of President or Vice-President under the extant laws and policies. Constitution; … 33. Publish an analytical report addressing compliance with official procedures for The Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunals in Nigeria, Election Tribunal: set up by Section 2(285): objective evaluation of the tribunals, and There shall be established in each State of the recommendations for improving future Federation one or more election tribunals to electoral dispute resolution after taking be known as the Governorship and Legislative into cognizance the flaws, gaps and lessons Houses Election Tribunals which shall, to the learnt. exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as 1.3 ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL IN to whether any person has been validly elected NIGERIA to the office of Governor or Deputy Governor Election Petition Tribunal in Nigeria is the or as a member of any legislative house. creation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (herein after referred National Assembly Election Tribunal: Section to as the Constitution). It is the body established 1(285)(a) to settle election disputes. By virtue of Section There shall be established for the Federation 239 and Section 285 of the Constitution, Election one or more election tribunals to be known as Tribunals are set up to adjudicate on grievances the National Assembly Election Tribunals which following the conduct of elections in Nigeria. shall, to the exclusion of any or tribunal, have In Nigeria Election Petitions Tribunals can be original jurisdiction to hear and determine grouped into three. They are: petitions as to whether - Any person has been validly elected as a mem- The Presidential Election Tribunal: this ber of the National Assembly; tribunal is set up by virtue of Section 1(239) (a) : Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, have

30 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Election Tribunal is constituted by a panel of 3 of disputes in Governorship, National Assembly Judges who must be High Court Judges, Pres- and the State Houses of Assembly election cas- idents of Customary Court of Appeal, Grand es. Final appeals in the National Assembly and Khadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal and persons of the State Houses of Assembly Election Petitions the rank of a Chief Magistrate37. The panel is led lie and end at the Court of Appeal. In Gover- by a Chairman who must be a Judge of a High norship election dispute cases however, appeal Court. To lead the secretariat of the Tribunal, a from the election tribunals go to the Court of Secretary is appointed to each of the Tribunals Appeal and a final appeal may be made to the set up. The President of the Court of Appeal has Supreme Court where the appellant is not sat- oversight powers over the Election Tribunals isfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The Election Tribunal does not treat cases that Time can be referred to as pre-election issues like Time is of the essence in election proceedings. issues around voters’ registration, double reg- It was held in the case of ANPP & Anor v INEC38 istration, party primaries, etc. The Tribunal only that the obligation in essentiality of time is high- accommodates issues that deal strictly with the er in election proceedings. Section 133(3) of the Election Day, based on the grounds by which Electoral Act (2015 Amendment) provides that such petitions can be filed. “the Election Tribunal shall: According to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amend- (a) be constituted not later than 30 days before ed), Section 133 (2); Election Tribunal or Court the election and, means: (b) when constituted, open their registries for (a) in the case of Presidential election, the business 7 days before election.” Court of Appeal and The tribunal, according to Section 285(6) of the (b) in the case of any other elections under this Constitution has 180 days within which to con- Act, the election tribunal established under the clude and deliver judgment in all petitions be- Constitution or by this Act”. fore it.

The Court of Appeal is the court of first instance 1.4 Election Petition for the settlement of disputes in Presidential An Election petition is a procedure for challeng- election cases. Final appeal in this instance lies at ing/inquiring into the validity of the election the Supreme Court; while the Election Tribunal results. In other words, Election Petition is the is the court of first instance for the settlement only legal means under the law to challenge

37 Paragraphs 1(2) of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal the return of a candidate in an election or the Republic of Nigeria, 1999 38 (2010) 7 EPR 201 at 733

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 31 election itself. Section 285(5) of the Constitution (d) That the petitioner or its candidate was val- provides that “an election petition shall be filed idly nominated but was unlawfully excluded within 21 days of the date of the declaration of from the election.” results of the election”; while Section 285(6) of the Constitution provides that “an election tri- 1.5 Presentation of an Election Petition bunal shall deliver judgment in writing within The process of presenting an election petition 180 days from the date of filing.” It is worthy of requires a petitioner, either acting in person or note that in computing time in accordance with through his solicitor, to deliver a copy of his pe- the provision of section 285(5) of the Constitu- tition to the Secretary, and to obtain a receipt in tion, the time prescribed for the filing of the pe- respect thereof from the Secretary41. Contem- tition begins to run from the time the result of poraneously with presenting his petition, he the election is declared.39 shall deliver to the Secretary, a copy of the election petition for each respondent and ten other

An election petition may be presented by one copies for the Secretary’s file42. The petitioner or or more of the following persons: his solicitor shall, at the time of presenting the (a) a candidate at an election election petition, pay the fees for the service (b) a political party which participated at the and publication of the petition, and for certify- election40. ing the copies. Where he defaults in making the Section 138 made provisions for the ground payment, the petition shall be deemed not to upon which a petition may be brought before have been received, unless the Tribunal or Court an election tribunal. Section 138(1) provides otherwise orders43. that “an election may be questioned on any of the following grounds, that is to say: The respondent, within 14 days of receiving ser- (a) That a person whose election is questioned vice of the petition on him is required to file his was, at the time of the election, not qualified to reply in the registry. The reply will contain which contest the election; of the allegations in the petition he admits and (b) That the election was invalid by reason of which he denies and is further required to set corrupt practices or non-compliance with the out the facts on which he relies in opposition to provisions of the Act; the election petition. The reply shall be accom- (c) That the respondent was not duly elected by panied by copies of documentary evidence, a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election; 41 first Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) at Paragraph 3(1) or 42 Ibid at Paragraph 3(2) 39 AluyeObia v. Okota (2009) 6 EPR 485 at 512 40 S. 137(1) of the Electoral Act 2010. 43 Ibid at Paragraph 3(4)

32 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) list of witnesses, and the written statements on there are 4 possible outcomes, they are46: oath of the witnesses44. (a) The election is declared void. The result is quashed, and a fresh election is held. At the time of presenting an election petition, (b) The election is held to have been unduly the petitioner shall give security for all costs conducted: the original election is quashed, which may become payable by him to a witness and another candidate is declared to have been summoned on his behalf or to a respondent, elected. and the security shall be of such amount not (c) The election is upheld, and the member re- less than =N=5,000.00 as the Tribunal or Court turned is found to have been duly elected. may order and shall be given by depositing the (d) The petition is withdrawn. This may occur amount with the tribunal or court, and if no se- when the petitioner fails to attend a hearing or curity is given as afore stated, there shall be no withdraws his/her petition. further proceedings on the election petition45.

When a petition is raised against an election,

44 Ibid at Paragraph 12

45 Ibid at Paragraph 2(1)-(4) 46 Section 140 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As Amended)

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 33 METHODOLOGY PART TWO

“Election Petition Tribunal in Nigeria is the creation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (herein after referred to as the Constitution). It is the body established to settle election disputes. By virtue of Section 239 and Section 285 of the Constitution“.

34 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 2.1 Methodology secondary data collection method. The prima- This work monitored the Election Petition Tri- ry data used involved trained monitors’, armed bunal’s processes and proceeding to ascertain with check lists, observation of the Election its compliance to EPT guidelines, the Constitu- Tribunals across the 36 States and the Federal tion, Electoral Act 2010 as amended and other Capital Territory of Nigeria. In order to do this, extant laws and policies. The outcome of this Kimpact Development Initiative: work is expected to form a database for elec- • Recruited 37 Election Tribunal Monitors toral and legal reforms. Kimpact Development (ETMs) across the 36 states and the Feder- Initiative adopted quantitative and qualitative al Capital Territory (FCT). The ETMs were re- in-depth analysis to achieve its aim. Qualitative cruited based on their legal and paralegal data collection method focused on obtaining experiences to monitor the resolution of data through open ended and conversational disputes arising from the 2019 Presidential communication. It is non-numeric and helps and Governorship Elections at the Election explore how decisions are made and it provides Tribunals. detailed insight. • Conducted a 2-day step-down training for the selected ETMs. At the training, the ETMs The qualitative method allowed for in-depth were equipped with the relevant skills and and further probing and questioning of respon- checklist required to effectively monitor the dents based on their responses. In achieving tribunals established to deal with challeng- this, Kimpact conducted in-depth interview, fo- es arising from the 2019 elections. cus group discussion with relevant stakeholders • Deployed the ETMs across the 36 states and and ethnographic method, which studies peo- the FCT, to monitor the Election Petition tri- ple in their natural environment; this was done bunals according to the objectives of the through trained monitors. The quantitative data EPT Monitoring. collection method involved collecting numeri- • ETMs reported their findings to KDI on daily cal data that are analyzed using mathematical- basis. ly (statistics) method. This work took a look at In utilizing secondary data collection method, patterns in the Election Tribunal’s processes and the EPTM project staff monitored the print me- proceedings in numerical form. The statistical dia and online news to verify information ema- analyses of the data collected were represented nating from the ETMs on the proceedings at the in info-graphs. tribunals. The gathered data/information were subjected to in-depth qualitative and quanti- This work employed the use of primary and tative analysis. The data/information were also

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 35 subjected to interpretive and comparative ana- The stakeholders comprised of Civil Society lyzes. During and after the preliminary analysis, Organizations, relevant Government Agen- KDI had: cies and Professional Bodies, Civil Society • A focus group discussion with members Organisations working around Good Demo- of the legal profession involved in Election cratic Governance, Elections and the Justice Petitions, the legal department of INEC and System. the Media. This group helped with clarifica- • The stakeholders and the EPTM project staff tions on certain issues that cropped up in had lengthy and robust discussions around the course of analysis. the findings in the preliminary reports pre- • A ten member Review Committee which sented. Lots of useful recommendations to- comprised of two Retired Judges – both of wards the improvement of legal framework whom were Chairmen of Election Tribunal in the adjudication of subsequent elections at some point in their service years; two rep- petitions were harvested from the round ta- resentatives, one each from the Nigeria Bar ble meetings Association (NBA) and FederacionInterna- The EPTM project staff adjusted the reports to cional De Abogadas (FIDA), two members of include the recommendations harvested from the civil society organization working in the the stakeholders for the improvement of the le- area of Good Democratic Governance and gal framework for electoral justice system and four EPT project staff. electoral reforms. • The Review Committee members met to review the data/information gathered from 2.2 What We Monitored the ETMs, analyzed and identify the gaps KDI monitored the EPT’s compliance with ex- in the laws guiding the proceedings of the tant laws and policies regulating the process Election Tribunals. and proceedings of the Tribunals. The specifics The EPTM project staff adjusted the reports in include: line with the review and recommendations of 1. Compliance of the Tribunal Judges with the the Review Committee. KDI then presented the Code of Conduct regulating the officials of reviewed report to: the Judiciary • A Stakeholders’ Forum in a round table 2. Observance of the Tribunal Practice Direc- meeting. The Stakeholders’ forum was con- tion ducted in three of the geo-political zones in 3. Fair hearing in the proceedings Nigeria – Kano in the North-West, Owerri in 4. Tribunal Judgment the South-East and Lagos in the South-West.

36 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 2.2.1 Conduct of the Tribunal’s Panel Mem- which his impartiality might reasonably be bers (Judges) questioned; this is otherwise referred to as There are rules and regulations guiding the recusal. A judge must be free from disabling conduct of judicial officers. The President of the conflicts of interest that could make the

Court of Appeal is empowered by the laws37 to fairness of the proceedings less likely to be constitute the Tribunals set up under the Consti- questioned. tution with Judicial officers, who are Judges of 3. Regulate his Extra-Judicial Activities to min- the High Court, Presidents of Customary Court imize the risk of conflict with his judicial du- of Appeal, Grand Kadis of Sharia Court of Appeal ties. Other issues provided in the Code in- and other members of the judiciary not below clude the Rules on vocational activities, civil the rank of Chief Magistrate38. It is expected that and charitable activities, freedom of expres- these judicial officers would comply with the sion an association, chieftaincy titles, fidu- Code of Conduct in the exercise of their duties. ciary duties, business and financial activities, The Code of Conducts with which the Tribunal acceptance of gifts and practice of law. Judges are expected to comply with includes: Judges must keep to their oath of office. They 1. That a Judicial Officer should avoid impro- are careful of whom they associate and interact priety and the appearance of impropriety in with so that they are not compromised; some- all his activities. He should avoid improper times, even without their knowledge. Judges, social relationships that affect his impartiali- including the Election Tribunal Panelists, have ty and the dignity of his office. always lived within a confined world, being 2. Conducts which relates to adjudicative and careful not to be compromised by supposed administrative duties, disqualification, and friends, who in reality could be their albatross. waiver of disqualification of a judicial officer. A judicial officer must be true and faithful It is the duty of the judges empaneled in a tribu- to the Constitution and the law. They are nal to adjudicate on cases brought before every expected to uphold the course of justice election tribunal. They are obligated to conduct by abiding with the provisions of the Con- the hearing in a free and fair manner. Demon- stitution and the law; and should acquire strating this, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, the and maintain professional competence. He honorable President of the Court of Appeal, on must disqualify himself in a proceeding in May 22, 2019, voluntarily withdrew her membership from the five-man panel of the 2019 37 Paragraphs 1(3) and 2(3) of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Presidential Election Tribunal. An allegation of Republic of Nigeria, 1999 likelihood of bias was leveled against her by the 38 Paragraphs 1(2) and 2(2) of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution ibid

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 37 Peoples Democratic Party and its candidate in the February 23, 2019 presidential election, Al- The Election Tribunal and Court Practice Direc- haji Abubakar Atiku. The allegation of PDP and tion, S. 1. No. 4 of 2011 made provisions for what its candidate was based on the fact that Justice will constitute a list of witnesses, the amount to Bulkachuwa’s husband and son are prominent be paid as security for cost, page and paper size card-carrying members of the All Progressive requirements of written submissions, date with- Congress; the party whose victory at the Febru- in which to appeal a decision and the cost im- ary 23, 2019 presidential election they are chal- plications, the nature, content and timeline for lenging. Although the Tribunal had held that filing Briefs of Argument and other directives. the petitioners did not place enough material evidence before the court to establish the alle- As at December 31, 2019, there was no report of gation of possible bias, the Hon. Justice Bulka- the contravention of any part of the provisions chuwa recused herself in the interest of justice of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Di- and transparency of the Election Tribunal pro- rection. cesses. 2.2.3 Fair hearing: 2.2.2 Observance of the Tribunal Practice Fair hearing, though a common law right, is also Direction: a constitutional right. In the determination of Practice Directions are directions given by the his civil rights and obligations, including any appropriate authority, in this case, the President question or determination by or against any of the Court of Appeal, prescribing the manner person, government or authority, a person shall in which a particular rule of court should be be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable complied with or observed. The purpose of EPT time by a court or tribunal established by law Practice Direction is to guide and regulate com- and constituted in such manner as to secure its pliance with the observance of the provisions of independence and impartiality. The four basic the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as criteria and attributes of fair hearing include: amended) and the Federal High Court Rules39. 1. That the court or tribunal shall hear both The Practice Direction has the same force of sides, not only in the case, but also in all law as the Rules of Court. Practice Direction will material issues in the case before reaching however lose its legal potency where its provi- a decision which may be prejudicial to any sions are in conflict with the 1999 Constitution party in the case; or the Electoral Act40. 2. That the court or tribunal shall give equal treatment, opportunity and consideration 39 Israel v. INEC &Ors (2010) LPELR 9082 to all concerned. 40 Abubarkar v. Yar’adua (2008) 4 NWLR [Pt. 1078] 455

38 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 3. That the proceedings shall be heard in pub- ground upon which a person may be disquali- lic and all concerned shall have access to fied from contesting an election. A person is not and be informed of such a place of public qualified to contest an election if; hearing. • he is not a citizen of Nigeria; candidates 4. That having regard to all the circumstances for presidential and governorship elections

in every material decision in the case, justice must be citizens of Nigeria by birth43 must not only be done, but must manifest- • he has been elected to such office at any ly and undoubtedly be seen to have been two previous occasions (applicable to pres- done. idential and governorship candidates only); 2.2.4 Tribunal Judgment • he is adjudged a lunatic or a person of un- According to Section 138(1)(a) -(d) of the Elec- sound mind; toral Act, 2010 (As Amended), there are four • he is under a death sentence or a sentence grounds upon which any aggrieved party at an of imprisonment for an offence involving election could file a petition. They are as follows: dishonesty or fraud; • That a person whose election is questioned • within a period of less than ten years prior was, at the time of the election, not qualified to the election, he has been convicted and to contest the election. sentenced for an offence involving dishon- • That the election was invalid by reason of esty or he has been found guilty of a contra- corrupt practices or non-compliance with vention of the code of conduct; the provisions of the Act. • he is an undischarged bankrupt, having • That the respondent was not duly elected been adjudged or otherwise declared bank- by majority of the lawful votes cast at the rupt under any law in force in any part of election Nigeria; • That the petitioner or its candidate was val- • he is employed by the public service of the idly nominated but was unlawfully excluded Federation or a State and he does not resign, from the election withdraw or retire from such employment As regards qualification, a person contesting for thirty days before the date of the election; election must be a member of a political party. • he is a member of any secret society;

It is only a political party that can, under the law41 • he has presented a forged certificate to the canvass for votes for a (candidate) person. Cer- Independent National Electoral Commis- tain sections of the Constitution42 specified the sion.

41 Section 221 of the Constitution al Assembly election and S.107 for the House of Assembly election

42 S.137 for presidential election, S.182 for governorship election, S.66 for Nation- 43 Sections 131 and 177 of the 1999 Constitution

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 39 2.2.5 Judgment who scored the highest number of valid At the conclusion of the hearing of a petition votes cast at the election and satisfied the raised against an election, the tribunal shall de- requirements of the Constitution and the termine whether a person whose election or re- Electoral Act47. turn is complained of or any other person, was 4. The election is upheld, and the member re- validly returned or elected, or whether the elec- turned is found to have been duly elected. tion was void. The possible outcomes are: 44 5. Effect of not participating in all stages of an 1. If the Court or Tribunal determines that a election: The Court or Tribunal shall not un- candidate who was returned as elected was der any circumstance declare any person a not validly elected on any ground, it shall winner at any election in which such a per-

nullify the election45. son has not fully participated in all stages of

2. The election is declared void. The result is the said election48. The position of the law quashed, and a fresh election is held: Where is that a person must participate in all the the Court or tribunal nullifies an election on stages of an election, starting from nomina- the ground that the person who obtained tion to the actual voting, before he can be

the highest votes at the election was not declared the winner of the said election49. qualified to contest the election or that the The judgment delivered by the various tribu- election was marred by substantial irreg- nals must fall within the above provisions of the ularities or non-compliance with the pro- law in order to qualify for a judgment properly visions of the Electoral Act, the tribunal or delivered. Any judgment that falls outside the court shall not declare the person with the purview of the foregoing would be considered second highest votes or any other person as a nullity for its inconsistency with the provisions

elected, but shall order a fresh election46. of the law. The analysis below will look at the 3. The election is held to have been unduly consistency of the judgments with the provi- conducted: the original election is quashed, sions of the law and show if the tribunals com- and another candidate is declared to have ply with the provisions of the extant laws. been elected: If the tribunal determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on the ground that he did not score the majority of the valid

votes cast at the election, the Court or tri- 47 Section 140(3)

bunal shall declare as elected the candidate 48 Section 141 Ibid and Section285(13) of the 4th Alteration to the Constitution

44 Section 140 of the Electoral Act 2010 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (4th Alteration Act No. 21) 2017

45 Section 140(1) Ibid 49 JEV v IYORTOM (2014) 14 NWLR [Pt. 1428]575, YAR’ADUA v YANDOMA (2015)

46 Section 140(2) Ibid 4NWLR [1448] 123 @174-6

40 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) KEY FINDINGS PART THREE

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 41 3.1 2019 ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL elections taken off the general election cycle as MONITORING KEY FINDINGS a result of previous irregularities that were re- In the 2019 general election year, elections were solved and determined by Courts of competent held on the 23rd of February to vote in the Pres- jurisdiction. The 7 States concerned are Anam- ident, members of the Senate and the House bra, Bayelsa, Ekiti, Edo, Kogi, Ondo and Osun. of Representatives; while the governorship and members of the State Houses of Assembly elec- In all, KDI gathered that 811 (eight hundred and tions took place on the 9th day of March 2019. eleven) petitions were filed at the 2019 Election Governorship elections took place in 29 out of Petition Tribunals across the 36 States and the the 36 States of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. The remaining 7 States had their governorship

SUMMARY OF PETITION FILED IN THE YEAR 2019 GENERAL ELECTIONS

S/N STATES SEN REP SHA GOV TOTAL

1 ABIA 4 9 15 4 32

2 ADAMAWA 2 7 11 3 23

3 AKWA-IBOM 2 8 24 1 35

4 ANAMBRA 8 9 25 NO GOV 42

5 BAUCHI 7 8 12 4 31

6 BAYELSA 4 9 15 0 28

7 BENUE 4 9 18 1 32

8 BORNO 2 2 3 0 7

9 CROSS RIVER 4 8 16 2 30

42 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 10 DELTA 5 9 37 1 52

11 EBONYI 1 3 1 2 7

12 EDO 2 5 7 NO GOV 14

13 EKITI 2 3 0 NO GOV 5

14 ENUGU 3 7 2 2 14

15 FCT 0 0 0 0 0

16 GOMBE 1 2 1 3 7

17 IMO 7 15 48 9 79

18 JIGAWA 0 0 0 0 0

19 KADUNA 4 6 9 1 20

20 KANO 0 12 23 4 39

21 KATSINA 0 0 1 1 2

22 KEBBI 0 0 2 1 3

23 KOGI 4 8 6 0 18

24 KWARA 0 0 1 2 3

25 LAGOS 2 12 1 2 17

26 NASARAWA 6 6 12 4 28

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 43 27 NIGER 2 0 6 3 11

28 OGUN 3 3 19 3 28

29 ONDO 1 3 3 NO GOV 7

30 OSUN 2 3 0 NO GOV 5

31 OYO 4 12 15 1 32

32 PLATEAU 4 8 10 1 23

33 RIVERS 2 6 11 5 24

34 SOKOTO 3 10 22 1 36

35 TARABA 3 4 14 1 22

36 YOBE 1 2 0 0 3

37 ZAMFARA 6 7 27 5 45

FCT 2 1 0 0 3

PRESIDENTIAL 4

105 215 420 67 811

44 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Though governorship elections took place in 29 in their various states filed 67 (sixty-seven) peti- States of the Federation, petitions against the tions. We also noted that Jigawa State accepted return or election of governorship candidates the result of all elections that took place during were filed in 26 States. The other three States, the 2019 general election on the First Ballot. The Borno, Jigawa and Yobe States, accepted the re- implication of this is that there was no Election sults of the governorship elections on the First Tribunal sitting at all in Jigawa State in the 2019 Ballot. The 26 States that went to the Election election-year. Tribunal challenging the governorship elections

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 45 46 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

CESS

ABUSE OF ABUSE OF

COURT PRO

REASON(S)

A LATER DATE LATER A

TO BE GIVEN AT GIVEN AT BE TO

SUPREME COURT

DISMISSED

DECISION

CASE

LACKED LACKED

BY INECBY

TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL

DUM NOT DUM NOT

PROVE HIS PROVE HIS

A PETITIONA

A REFERENA

PETITIONER

DID NOT AD NOT DID

CONDUCTED

REASON(S)

EVIDENCE TO EVIDENCE TO

PREMISED ON PREMISED ON

JURISDICTION

TO ENTERTAIN ENTERTAIN TO

DUCE ENOUGH DUCE ENOUGH

COURT OF APPEAL OF COURT

DISMISSED

DECISION

ELECTION

TO CONTEST CONTEST TO

LAWFUL VOTE LAWFUL

GROUND (S) GROUND (S)

WITH THE WITH THE PRO

DENT WAS NOT NOT DENT WAS SION SION FROM THE VISIONS THE OF

ELECTORAL ACT

FOR PETITIONFOR

ELECTION INEC BY

SECOND RESPONSECOND DULY ELECTED BY DULY

SECOND RESPONSECOND

UNLAWFUL EXCLU UNLAWFUL NON-COMPLIANCE NON-COMPLIANCE

MAJORITY THE- OF

DENT NOT ELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE DENT NOT

APC

PARTY

BUHARI

PRESIDENT PRESIDENT

NAME OF NAME OF

BUHARI/ INEC BUHARI/

MUHAMMADU MUHAMMADU

RESPONDENT

INEC/ PRESIDENT PRESIDENT INEC/

PRESIDENTIAL CASES

HDP

PDP

PARTY

NAME OF NAME OF

PETITIONER

ALBERT OWURU

CHIEF AMBROSE CHIEF AMBROSE

ATIKU ABUBAKAR ATIKU

CA/

SUIT SUIT NO

PEPC/001/2019

PEPC/002/2019

FCT

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 47

REASON(S)

SUPREME COURT SUPREME

SION

DECI

WITHDRAWN

REASON(S)

COURT OF APPEAL OF COURT

DECISION

STRUCK OUT STRUCK

CASTED

UNLAWFUL UNLAWFUL

BY MAJORITY MAJORITY BY

OF THE VOTES VOTES THE OF

LAWFUL VOTE LAWFUL

THE ELECTION ELECTION THE

-RESP. DID NOT NOT DID -RESP.

DULY ELECTED ELECTED DULY

GROUND (S) (S) GROUND

DENT WAS NOT NOT WAS DENT

DENT ELIGIBILITY ELIGIBILITY DENT

FOR PETITION FOR

WIN BY MAJORITY MAJORITY BY WIN

EXCLUSION FROM FROM EXCLUSION

WAS CONTENDED WAS

SECOND RESPON SECOND

APC

PARTY

SPONDENT

MADU BUHARI MADU

BUHARI/ YEMI BUHARI/

MUHAMMADU MUHAMMADU

INEC/ MUHAM INEC/

NAME OF RE OF NAME

OSINBANJO/INEC

C4C

PDM

PARTY

CHI HABU CHI

NAME OF OF NAME

PASTOR AMIN PASTOR

PETITIONER

CHIZEEOJINIKA

CHANGE/GEFF

COALITION FOR FOR COALITION

SUIT NO SUIT

CA/PEPC/004/2019

CA/PEPC/003/2019

FCT

STATES

3 S/N

48 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

REASON(S)

ELECTORAL ACT.

THE ELECTORALTHE ACT

INGS AT THE TRIBUNAL THE INGS AT

INGS AT THE TRIBUNAL. THE INGS AT

TRIBUNAL

LACK OF DILIGENT OF PROSECUTIONLACK

PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK DISMISSED LACK FOR WAS PETITION

OF MERIT AS THE PETITIONER FAILED PETITIONERTHE FAILED MERIT AS OF TO ACTIVATE THE PRE-HEARINGTHE PRO ACTIVATE TO

TO PROOF HIS ALLEGATION OF OVER OVER OF PROOF ALLEGATION HIS TO

OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE PROCEEDTHE PLAINTIFFSTHE IN OF

CESS WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED CESS WITHIN TIME THE BY STIPULATED

VOTING AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH NON-COMPLIANCEAND VOTING

PETITION ABANDONED HAVING FAILED PETITION FAILED ABANDONED HAVING

QUASHED OVER POOR REPRESENTATION OVER POOR REPRESENTATION QUASHED

DISMISSED

DECISION

PETITION WAS PETITION WAS

ELECTORAL ACT

NOT DULY ELECTED DULY NOT

MASSIVE MASSIVE OVER VOTING

OUT OF 17 LGAS OF THE STATE STATE THE OF LGAS 17 OF OUT

MASSIVE IRREGULARITIES IN 15 IRREGULARITIES15 MASSIVE IN

CARD READER WERE NOT USED WERE NOT CARD READER

THE SECOND RESPONDENT WAS WAS RESPONDENT SECOND THE

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

AND AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

NON-COMPLIANCE & NON-COMPLIANCEOVER-VOTING &

PDP

PARTY

PDP

/INEC

NAME OF NAME OF

OKEZIE IKPEAZU

GOVERNORSHIP CASES OKEZIE IKPEAZU

OKEZIE IKPEAZU

RESPONDENT

APC

APP

ADC

APC

APGA

PARTY

APC

NAME OF NAME OF

OKEY OKEY IGWE

DR. ALEX OTTIDR.

PETITIONER

DR .UCHE .UCHE OGAHDR

KELENNA OBON

EPT/AB/

EPT/AD/

SUIT SUIT NO

GOV/01/2019

GOV/001/2019

GOV/002/2019

GOV/003/2019

GOV/004/2019

ABIA

STATES

ADAMAWA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 49 -

ALLEGATION

REASON(S)

ELECTORAL ACT

CASE CASE WITHDRAWN

PROVE THEIR ALLEGATIONS

TRIBUNAL

ISSUES IN THE PETITIONERS’’ CASE. PETITIONERS’’ THE ISSUES IN

SPECIFIED TIME REQUIRED THE BY WANT OF DILIGENT OF PROSECUTION WANT OF MERIT AS THE PETITION FAILED PETITIONTHE FAILED MERIT AS OF

PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK DISMISSED LACK FOR WAS PETITION

AL INFORMATION SHEET WITHIN THE THE WITHIN SHEET INFORMATION AL

THEY FAILED -TO APPLY FOR PRE-TRI FOR APPLY -TO THEY FAILED

TO PROVIDE ORAL EVIDENCETO LINKING

THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE HIS PROVE HIS TO PETITIONERTHE FAILED

THE DOCUMENTARY THE THE EVIDENCE DOCUMENTARY TO

THAT THE THE PETITIONERSUNABLE TO THAT WAS

DRAWN

MISSED

PETITION

DISMISSED DISMISSED

DISMISSED

CASE CASE WITH DISMISSED

DECISION

AGAINST APPAGAINST

PETITION DIS

PETITION WAS PETITION WAS

AMENDED).

BALLOT PAPER BALLOT

AT THE THE ELECTIONAT

THE GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION. GUBERNATORIAL THE

OMISSION OF PARTY LOGO ON ON LOGO OMISSION PARTY OF

THE GOVERNOR OF BAUCHI STATE. GOVERNORTHE BAUCHI OF

THE ELECTION IS INVALID BY REASON OF REASON BY OF ELECTIONTHE INVALID IS

PETITIONER VALIDLY NOMINATED A A NOMINATED VALIDLY PETITIONER

ITS CANDIDATE WERE UNLAWFULLY WERE UNLAWFULLY CANDIDATE ITS

TORAL ACT 2015 AS AMENDED& AMENDED& AS ACT2015 TORAL

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S) NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSTANTIAL THE

THE ENTIRETY OF THE BAUCHI STATE GOVER ENTIRETYTHE STATE BAUCHI THE OF

BY MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST CAST VOTES MAJORITYBY THE OF

PROVISION OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2010 (AS (AS 2010 ELECTORALTHE PROVISION ACT, OF

EXCLUDED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FIRST RESPONDENT THE BY EXCLUDED

CANDIDATE, BUT THE PETITIONERTHE AND BUT CANDIDATE,

NORSHIP ELECTION IS INVALID BY REASON OF REASON BY OF NORSHIP ELECTION INVALID IS

BAKAR AS THE VALID CANDIDATE TO CONTEST CONTEST TO CANDIDATE VALID THE BAKAR AS

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION OF ALHAJI OF GUMI ABU EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

CORRUPT PRACTICES; THE FIRST RETHE PRACTICES;CORRUPT

SPONDENT WAS NOT DULY ELECTED DULY NOT WAS SPONDENT

FROM THE ELECTION INTO THE OFFICE OF OFFICETHE OF ELECTIONTHE FROM INTO

PDP

INEC

PDP

PARTY

INEC

INEC MED

MAED

NAME OF NAME OF

BABA TELA BABA TELA /

EMMANUEL/

BALAMUHAM

BALA BALA MOHAM

UDOM GABRIEL UDOM GABRIEL

RESPONDENT

APP

APC APP

PDM

MRDD

PARTY

EKERE

PART Y

MENT

PART Y

NAME OF NAME OF

THE RESTO THE

NSIMA UDO UDO NSIMA

DEFENCE OF DEFENCE OF RATION AND AND RATION

DEMOCRACY

PETITIONER

CRATIC MOVE CRATIC

PEOPLE DEMO

MOVEMENT FOR MOVEMENT FOR

ACTION PEOPLE

ACTION PEOPLE’S

EPT/AD/

EPT/AKS/

SUIT SUIT NO

EPT/GOV/

BA/1/2019

BA/2/2019

GOV/02/2019

GOV/03/2019

GOV/01/2019

BAUCHI

STATES

ADAMAWA

AKWA-IBOM

S/N

50 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

TRIBUNAL.

REASON(S)

ENTERTAIN IT ENTERTAIN

LARITIES ALLEGED.

INFORMATION SHEET INFORMATION

CASE WAS WITHDRAWN CASE WAS

TRIBUNAL

FAILURE TO APPLY FOR PRE-TRIAL PRE-TRIAL FOR APPLY TO FAILURE

PETITIONERS FAILED TO TO PETITIONERS THE LINK FAILED

TRIBUNAL HELD THAT PETITIONERS THAT TRIBUNAL HELD

DUMPED THE DOCUMENTS THE ON

TO THE PETITION, SAYING THAT THEY THEY THE THAT TO PETITION, SAYING TRIBUNAL LACKED JURISDICTION TO TRIBUNAL JURISDICTION LACKED TO

DOCUMENTS TENDERED EVIDENCE IN DOCUMENTS

OF OVER VOTING AND OTHER IRREGU OTHER AND VOTING OVEROF

FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM TO SUBSTANTIATE FAILED

OUT

MISSED

UPHELD

ELECTION

CASE WAS CASE WAS

DISMISSED.

DECISION

BY THE THE BY PETI

PETITION DIS

WITHDRAWING WITHDRAWING

TIONER/STRUCK TIONER/STRUCK

ELECTION

- - OVER VOTING

OF BAUCHI STATE. BAUCHI OF

NOT DULY ELECTED DULY NOT

THE LAWFUL VOTE CASTED VOTE LAWFUL THE

AL ACT 2010 AS AMENDED AMENDED AS ACTAL 2010

NOMINATED BY THE PARTY THE BY NOMINATED

AND ITS CANDIDATE WERE UN CANDIDATE ITS AND

OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST AT THE THE CAST AT VOTES LAWFUL OF

ELECTION AFTER BEEN VALIDLY ELECTIONVALIDLY AFTER BEEN

THE SECOND RESPONDENT WAS WAS RESPONDENT SECOND THE

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

CANDIDATE, BUT THE PETITIONERTHE BUT CANDIDATE,

NOT DULY ELECTED MAJORITY BY DULY NOT

- CARD READERS WERE NOT USED WERE NOT CARD READERS-

- THE SECOND RESPONDENT WAS WAS RESPONDENT SECOND THE -

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION FROM THE THE FROM EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

RESPONDENT FROM THE ELECTIONTHE RESPONDENT FROM

PETITIONER VALIDLY NOMINATED A A NOMINATED VALIDLY PETITIONER

LAWFULLY EXCLUDED BY THE FIRST FIRST THE BY EXCLUDED LAWFULLY

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN OF NOT DID -RESP.

INTO THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR THE OFFICETHE OF INTO - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTOR NON-COMPLIANCE-

PDP

PARTY

BALA BALA

INEC

PDP

DULKADIR DULKADIR

NAME OF NAME OF

BEN AYADE BEN

INEC / / INEC

MOHAMMED

SEN. BALAAB SEN.

SAMUEL SAMUEL ORTOM

RESPONDENT

APC

PDM

APC

PARTY

APC

MENT MENT

BAKAR

SEN. JOHN JOHN SEN.

NAME OF NAME OF

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED

OWAN-ENOH

CRATIC MOVE CRATIC

PETITIONER

PEOPLE DEMO

ABDULLAHIABU

EMMANUEL JIMEEMMANUEL

EPT /BN/

EPT/GOV/

EPT/CAL/

SUIT SUIT NO

EPT/CAL/

BA/4/2019

BA/3/2019FD

GOV/01/2019

GOV/02/2019

BENUE

BAUCHI

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 51 -

DUE

MOTION

REASON(S)

PETITION WAS WITHDRAWN PETITION WAS

TRIBUNAL

PETITION WERE WITHDRAWN VIA VIA PETITION WERE WITHDRAWN

PETITION AGAINST THE VICTORY OF THE PETITION AGAINST

PETITION WERE WITHDRAWN PETITIONTHE WERE WITHDRAWN IN

FAILED IN SUBMITTING THE NAME OF SUBMITTING IN OF NAME THE FAILED

THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE HIS PROVE HIS TO PETITIONERTHE FAILED

CAL PARTY OF THE PETITIONERTHE (PDM) OF PARTY CAL FOR LACK OF MERIT THAT THE POLITITHE THAT MERIT OF LACK FOR

INTEREST OF PROGRESS OF THE STATE THE INTEREST PROGRESS OF OF

THEIR CANDIDATE TO INEC AS AT WHEN WHEN AT AS INEC TO THEIR CANDIDATE

MISSED

UPHELD

DRAWN

ELECTION

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

INSTANCE OF OF INSTANCE

PETITION DIS

DRAWN AT THE THE AT DRAWN

PETITION WITH

THE PETITIONERTHE

THE LAPSESTHE

PETITIONER CITED UNLAWFUL PETITIONER CITED UNLAWFUL

DULY ELECTED MAJORITY A BY DULY

OF LAWFUL VOTES DURING THE THE DURING VOTES LAWFUL OF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

EXCLUSION OF HIS NAME IN INEC INEC IN NAME HIS OF EXCLUSION

THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE

AND ITS CANDIDATE WERE BEHIND WERE BEHIND CANDIDATE ITS AND

ELECTION. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH

BALLOT PAPER, ALLEGING THAT PDP PDP THAT ALLEGING PAPER, BALLOT

ELECTORAL ACT 2010(AS AMENDED) ELECTORAL ACT2010(AS

PDP

PARTY

INEC

WUANYI

INEC/ GOV. GOV. INEC/

NAME OF NAME OF

IFEANYIUG

ENGR. DAVID DAVID ENGR.

DAVID UMAHI DAVID

THUR OKOWA/

DR. IFEANYI AR DR.

NWAEZEUMAHI

WUANYI& 3ORS WUANYI&

RESPONDENT

GOV. IFEANYIUG GOV.

APC

APP

APC

DAVID DAVID

UMAHI

PARTY

INEC/ GOV. GOV. INEC/

APP

PDM

ANOR

NAME OF NAME OF

CHIEF GREAT CHIEF GREAT

SEN. SUNDAY SUNDAY SEN.

OJI OGBUOJI& OGBUOJI& OJI

PETITIONER

SEN. AYOGUEZE SEN.

OVEDJEOGBORU

EPT/EB/ HAGHA

O1/2019

EPT/EN/

SUIT SUIT NO

CHIEF AJA

GOV/1/2019

GOV/2/2019

EPT/DT/GOV/

GOV/01/2019

DELTA

EBONYI

ENUGU

STATES

S/N

52 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

TENCE

REASON(S)

WITHDREW THE

THE PROCESSESTHE THE PETITIONERTHE

ILL HEALTH AND HEALTH ILL

PETITIONS TO DUE

INABILITY TO FUND

TRIBUNAL

THE THE PETITIONER WITHDREW THE

PETITION OF THE PETITIONER WAS WAS PETITIONERTHE PETITION OF

PETITIONS DUE TO ILL HEALTH AND AND HEALTH ILL TO PETITIONS DUE

INABILITY TO FUND THE PROCESSES

HIS RESULTS WERE EXCLUDED FROM FROM WERE EXCLUDED RESULTS HIS

OF PROOF OF THE ALLEGATION THAT THAT ALLEGATION THE PROOFOF OF

HE DID NOT DISCHARGE THE BURDEN BURDEN THE DISCHARGE NOT DID HE

THE FINAL RESULTS OF THE ELECTIONTHE OF FINAL THE RESULTS

DISMISSED AS A RESULT OF INCOMPE OF DISMISSEDRESULT A AS

PETITION IS

DISMISSED

PETITION IS

DISMISSED

PETITION IS

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

WITHDRAWN STRUCK OUT

WITHDRAWN

WITHDRAWN HAVING BEEN HAVING

HAVING BEEN HAVING

ON 25/04/2019

OMISSION RESULT OF

THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE THE GOVERNORTHE OF

DECLARING GOVERNOR; AS HIM

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NOT MEET THE CONSTITUTIONALTHE MEET NOT

TIAL COMPLIANCE TO THE LAW IN IN LAW THE TO COMPLIANCE TIAL

REQUIREMENT SUBSTAN NO AND

UNLAWFULLY DECLARED BY INEC AS DECLARED AS INEC BY UNLAWFULLY

APC

ASD

PDP

PARTY

INUWA

YAHAYA

HA/INEC

NAME OF NAME OF

MUHAMMAD

ALIYU ADAMU

EMEKA IHEDIO

RESPONDENT

PDC

AGA

APC

PARTY

ADAMU

JUNGUDO

NAME OF NAME OF

MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD

UCHE NWOSU PETITIONER

AUWAL IBRAHIM AUWAL

HOPE UZODINMA

EPT/GM/

SUIT SUIT NO

EPT/GOV/

IM/02/2019

IM/003/2019 GOV/01/2019

GOV/02/2019

IMO

GOMBE

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 53 -

TENCE

HEARING

WITHDRAWN REASON(S)

TRIBUNAL

FAILED TO APPLY FOR PRE-TRIAL PRE-TRIAL FOR APPLY TO FAILED

PETITION OF THE PETITIONER WAS WAS PETITIONERTHE PETITION OF

DISMISSED AS A RESULT OF INCOMPE OF DISMISSEDRESULT A AS

DISMISSED

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

TORAL ACTTORAL

LAWFUL VOTES LAWFUL

LACKED (2/3) MAJORITY OF THE MAJORITYTHE OF (2/3) LACKED

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

PDP

PARTY

HA/INEC

NATIONAL NATIONAL

HA & 2ORS & HA

NATIONAL NATIONAL

NAME OF NAME OF

ELECTORAL

COMMISSION COMMISSION

INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

(INEC) & 2 ORS 2 (INEC) &

INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

(INEC) & 2 ORS 2 (INEC) &

INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

(INEC) & 2 ORS 2 (INEC) &

EMEKA IHEDIO

RESPONDENT

PPN

MMN

NDLP

APGA

PARTY

ANR

AND

C. & ANR

NAME OF NAME OF

IJEOMA ON IJEOMA

WUBUARIRI & & WUBUARIRI

IHEANACHO & IHEANACHO &

CLIFORD OKE

PETITIONER

CHIGOZIE JERRY CHIGOZIE JERRY

NWADIGO CHRIS CHRIS NWADIGO CHUKWU ANR. &

IFEANYI ARARAU

EPT/GOV/

SUIT SUIT NO IM/4/2019

EPT/GOV/

IM/5/2019

EPT/GOV/

IM/6/2019

EPT/GOV/

IM/7/2019

IM/8/2019

IMO

STATES

S/N

54 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) IN MERIT. IN

WITHDRAWN

REASON(S)

THE IRREGULARITYTHE

TRIBUNAL

PETITIONERS FAILED TO ADDUCE ADDUCE TO PETITIONERS FAILED

DISMISSED THE PETITIONER’STHE SUIT DISMISSED

OF THE APC AS DULY ELECTED AND DULY AS APC THE OF

ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS;

EVEN IF PETITIONERS WERE ABLE TO TO EVEN PETITIONERSWERE ABLE IF

CHALLENGING THE ELECTION THE OF

PROVE NON-COMPLIANCE, IT WOULD WOULD PROVE IT NON-COMPLIANCE,

RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE CANDIDATE CANDIDATE THE OF FAVOUR RULED IN

CANDIDATE OF THE APC FOR LACKING LACKING FOR APC THE OF CANDIDATE

BE WRONG FOR THEM TO BENEFIT FROM BENEFIT FROM TO THEM WRONG FOR BE

UPHELD

ELECTION

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

PRACTICES.

TORAL ACTTORAL

AT THE THE ELECTIONAT

2010, AS AMENDED. AS 2010,

2010 (AS AMENDED). (AS 2010

ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE THE THE ON GROUNDS THAT

-THAT THE ELECTION OF THE 2ND RESPON2ND ELECTIONTHE OF -THAT

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

THAT THE 2ND RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS RESPONDENT2ND THE THAT

DENT WAS INVALID BY REASON OF CORRUPT REASON CORRUPT BY OF INVALID WAS DENT

ULARITIES AND AS SUCH DID NOT ULARITIES NOT SUCH DID AS AND

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORALTHE PROVISIONSTHE ACT OF WITH

CONFORM TO THE THE TO CONFORM ELECTORAL ACT

ELECTED BY MAJORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST ELECTEDCAST VOTES MAJORITY BY LAWFUL OF

-THAT THE ELECTION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT 2ND ELECTIONTHE THE OF -THAT

WAS INVALID BY REASON OF NON-COMPLIANCE REASON NON-COMPLIANCE BY OF INVALID WAS

ELECTIONS IRREG BY WERE MARRED

PDP

APC

PARTY

FAI

INEC

GANDUJE

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC& 2 ORS. 2 INEC&

AHMAD EL-RUAHMAD

MALLAM NASIR NASIR MALLAM

DR. ABDULLAHI ABDULLAHI DR.

RESPONDENT

SNC

PDP

PARTY

SUF

INEC

NAME OF NAME OF

ISAH ASHIRU/ISAH

PETITIONER

SIR. (BARR.) HO (BARR.) SIR.

GAN ACHIEGBUGAN

ZIE JOHN & ANR & JOHN ZIE

OKEOGU CHIGO

ABBA KABIR-YUS

EPT/KD/

EPT/KN/

EPT/GOV/

SUIT SUIT NO IM/9/2019

IM/9/2019

GOV/01/2019

IMO

KANO

STATES

KADUNA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 55 -

STATE

ELECTION.

REASON(S)

PETITION WITHDRAWN

CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONERTHE CLAIMED BY

THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE THE TRIBUNALTHE HELD THAT

TRIBUNAL

EVIDENCE THAT THE CAN EVIDENCE THAT PORTRAY

ELECTION IRREGULARI FULL OF AS

WITHDRAW IN THE INTEREST OF THE THE INTERESTTHE OF IN WITHDRAW

PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THE ALTHE PROVE TO PETITIONER FAILED

TIES AND ELECTIONAND TIES MALPRACTICE AS

THE PETITIONTHE NECESSARY ALL LACKED

LEGATION OF SUBSTANTIAL NON-COM SUBSTANTIAL OF LEGATION

PLIANCE TO THE THE PLIANCE TO ELECTORAL ACT THE IN

MISSED

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

PETITION DIS

AL ACT;

ELECTION

MALPRACTICE

2010 (AS AMENDED). (AS 2010

CERTIFICATE FORGERY CERTIFICATE

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

LAWFUL VOTES VOTES CASTED LAWFUL

LAWFUL VOTES VOTES CASTED; LAWFUL

ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE THE THE ON GROUNDS THAT THE NON- COMPETENCE OF

THE ELECTION WAS FULL OF FULL OF ELECTIONTHE WAS

RESPONDENT TO CONTEST FOR FOR CONTEST TO RESPONDENT

IRREGULARITIES ELECTIONAND

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

ULARITIES AND AS SUCH DID NOT ULARITIES NOT SUCH DID AS AND

CONFORM TO THE THE TO CONFORM ELECTORAL ACT

DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY OF THE MAJORITY BY WIN THE OF NOT DID

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

ELECTIONS IRREG BY WERE MARRED

APC

PARTY

GANDUJE

DUJE/INEC

NAME OF NAME OF

ABDULLAHI ABDULLAHI

BELLO MASARI BELLO

SEN. ABUBAKA ABUBAKA SEN. NASIRU GAWU

RT. HON. AMINU AMINU HON. RT.

BAGUDU & INEC & BAGUDU

RESPONDENT

ABDULLAHIGAN

PPP

GPN

PDP

GPN

PDP

PARTY

BU LADOBU

NAME OF NAME OF

ABDULKARIM

HADIZA SABAHADIZA ABDULKARIM

ABDUSSALAM

ISA GALAUDU ISA

PETITIONER

SENATOR YAKU SENATOR

EPT/KN/

EPT/KT/

EPT/KN/

EPT/KB/

SUIT SUIT NO

GOV/02/2019

GOV/03/2019

GOV/04/2019

GOV/01/2019

GOV/017/2019

KANO

KEBBI

KANO

STATES

KATSINA

S/N

56 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

STATE

GUILTY.

REASON(S)

EMANATED FROM THEM EMANATED

TRIBUNAL

FOR PRE-HEARINGFOR CONFERENCE

THAT ABDULRAZAQ’S CREDENTIAL CREDENTIAL ABDULRAZAQ’S THAT

THE BURDEN THE PROOF OF EXPECTED REASONABLE PROVE BEYOND NOT

AND SINCE THE PETITIONERTHE COULD SINCEAND

RELIED UPON WAEC MADE IT CLEAR CLEAR IT MADE WAEC RELIED UPON

DOUBT THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS THE RESPONDENT WAS DOUBT THAT

DISMISSED BECAUSE IT LACKS MERIT MERIT LACKS IT DISMISSED BECAUSE

OF THEM AND FROM THE EVIDENCES THE THEM FROMAND OF WITHDRAW IN THE INTEREST OF THE THE INTERESTTHE OF IN WITHDRAW

AS THE PETITIONERTHE DISCHARGED HAS AS

FROM ALL THE EVIDENCESTHE PRESENTED FROM ALL

BEFORE THE COURT THE PETITION WAS

TION COUNCIL WHICH THE PETITIONERTHE WHICH TION COUNCIL

PRESENTED BY WEST AFRICA EXAMINA PRESENTED BY

PETITION FAILED TO FILE APPLICATIONS APPLICATIONS FILE TO PETITION FAILED

2019.

MISSED

CASE CASE DIS

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

PETITION DIS

PETITION DIS ON THE THE ON JUDG

THE CASE WAS THE CASE WAS

DELIVERED ON DELIVERED ON

SEPTEMBER 20, SEPTEMBER 20,

MENT THAT WAS WAS MENT THAT

DISMISSED BASE DISMISSED BASE

PLIANCE

ELECTION.

AS AMENDED. AS

BALLOT PAPER BALLOT

INCOMPETENCE)

1. NON-COMPLIANCE 1.

AT THE TIME TIME THE OF AT ELECTION WAS

LOGO OF HIS PARTY FROM THE THE FROM PARTY HIS OF LOGO

2. 2. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

1. THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS RESPONDENT SECOND THE AS 1.

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S) NOT QUALIFIED TO TO THE NOT CONTEST QUALIFIED

2. NON-QUALIFICATION (MENTAL (MENTAL NON-QUALIFICATION 2. 3. CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMCONSEQUENCE OF 3.

LAWFUL VOTES CAST DURING THE THE CAST DURING VOTES LAWFUL

CONTAINING FALSE INFORMATION FALSE CONTAINING

OMISSION OF HIS NAME AND THE THE AND OMISSION NAME HIS OF

2. THE SECOND RESPONDENT SECOND THE SUB 2.

TORAL COMMISSION AN AFFIDAVIT AFFIDAVIT COMMISSION AN TORAL

1. THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE 1.

MITTED THE TO INDEPENDENT ELEC

DULY ELECTED BY THE MAJORITYTHE ELECTED BY OF DULY

PROVISION OF ELECTORAL ACT 2010 PROVISION ELECTORAL OF ACT2010

APC

PARTY

SULE

RAZAQ

NATIONAL NATIONAL

MANABDL

NAME OF NAME OF

ELECTORAL

ABDULRAH

MANABDUL

SANWO-OLU

RAZAQ /INEC RAZAQ SANWO-OLU

MR. BABAJIDE MR.

INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

COMMISSION/ COMMISSION/ BABAJIDE MR.

MR. ABDULLAHI ABDULLAHI MR.

RESPONDENT

PDP

PDM

PARTY

ANCE

SALIS

ATUNWA

IFAGBEMI IFAGBEMI

NAGOGO

NAME OF NAME OF

HON RAZAK RAZAK HON

AWAMARIDI

ACTION ALLI

MUSA YUSUF MUSA YUSUF

PETITIONER

PRINCE (PROF) PRINCE (PROF)

CHIEF OWOLABI

EPT/KW/

EPT/KW/ EPT/NS/

EPT/LAG/

EPT/LAG/ SUIT SUIT NO

GOV/1/2019

GOV/2/2019

GOV/01/2019

GOV/02/2019

GOV/01/2019

KWARA

LAGOS

KWARA LAGOS

STATES

NASARAWA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 57 -

WITHDRAWN

REASON(S)

WITHDRAWN

ALLOWED BY THE LAW THE BY ALLOWED

TRIBUNAL

ING ING TIME BEFORE THE STIPULATED

MERIT AS THE PETITIONER FAILED TO TO PETITIONERTHE FAILED MERIT AS

DECIDED BY A FEDERALDECIDED A HIGH COURT BY

THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONTHE CONSTI THAT FACT THE COURTABUSETUTES PROCESS, OF AN

PRAYER OF THE PETITIONERTHE DISMISSED OF PRAYER HE FILED APPLICATION FOR PRE-HEAR FOR FILED APPLICATION HE

ESTABLISH THEIR CASE, COUPLED WITH WITH COUPLED THEIR CASE, ESTABLISH

PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF DISMISSED OF LACK FOR WAS PETITION BEEN HEARDHAD AND MATTER THE AS

DISMISSED

PETITIONER

DECISION

PETITIONER

STRUCK OUT

PRAYER THE OF PRAYER

AL ACT

TO CONTEST, TO

ELECTORAL ACT INEC BY

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

DUE ALLOTMENT OF VOTE TO APC APC TO VOTE OF ALLOTMENT DUE

ITIES AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH NON-COMPLIANCEAND ITIES ALLEGATION OF OVER-VOTING, UN OVER-VOTING, OF ALLEGATION

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR AND RESPONDENT NOT QUALIFIED QUALIFIED RESPONDENTAND NOT

ALLEGED FORGERY OF CERTIFICATE ALLEGED FORGERY CERTIFICATE OF

CANDIDATE, DISENFRANCHISEMENT CANDIDATE,

OF VOTER, WIDESPREAD VOTER, OF IRREGULAR

APC

PARTY

SULE

- INEC-

NAME OF NAME OF

ABUBAKAR ABUBAKAR

SULE, & INEC & SULE,

SULE & 2 ORS. 2 SULE &

UMAR NASKO UMAR

MR. ABDULLAHI ABDULLAHI MR.

RESPONDENT

PDP

PARTY

MR. DAVID DAVID MR.

NAME OF NAME OF

EMMANUEL EMMANUEL

MEDNASKO

ALEXANDRA

OMBUGADU

PETITIONER

UMAR MOHAM UMAR

EPT/NS/

EPT/NG/

SUIT SUIT NO

GOV/02/2019

GOV/03/2019

GOV/04/2019

GOV/01/2019

GOV/02/2019

NIGER

STATES

NASARAWA

S/N

58 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

REASON(S)

LOT COUNTING LOT

THE PETITIONERTHE

ESTABLISH THEIR CASE ESTABLISH

TRIBUNAL

TORAL ACT, ALLEGED IMPROPER ACT, TORAL

FAILURE TO PROVE SUBSTANTIAL PROVE SUBSTANTIAL TO FAILURE

PETITIONER FAILED WOEFULLY TO TO PETITIONERWOEFULLY FAILED

AND VOID BECAUSE PETITIONVOID BECAUSE FILED AND

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

WAS BASELESS AND DOES NOT WAR BASELESS DOES AND NOT WAS

RANT REELECTION REQUESTED AS BY

PETITION FILED WAS DECLARED NULL DECLARED NULL WAS PETITION FILED

OVER-VOTING AND INACCURATE BAL OVER-VOTING INACCURATE AND

ACCREDITATION, CORRUPT PRACTICES, CORRUPT ACCREDITATION,

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

PETITION

DISMISSED

DISMISSED AWARDED AWARDED

DISMISSED

DECISION

PETITIONER.

AGAINST THE THE AGAINST

N200,000 WAS

SHEETS/DATA

TO CONTEST TO

OVER-VOTING OVER-VOTING

RUPT RUPT PRACTICES

ON BALLOT PAPER BALLOT ON

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

- IMPROPER- ACCREDITATION

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION OF THE THE OF ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION

ELECTORAL ACT AMENDED. AS

OVER VOTING FOR THE RESPONDENT; RESPONDENT; THE FOR VOTING OVER

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

UNDUE RETURN NON-COMAND

- ALLEGED ALLEGATION OF COR OF ALLEGED - ALLEGATION

RESPONDENT; ELECTIONRESPONDENT; CONDUCTED

WAS NOT DULY CONDUCTED IN TOTAL TOTAL CONDUCTED IN DULY NOT WAS

WRONG TABULATION OF INEC RESULTS RESULTS INEC OF TABULATION WRONG

- INACCURATE BALLOT COUNTING BALLOT INACCURATE -

AND RESPONDENT NOT QUALIFIED QUALIFIED RESPONDENTAND NOT

ALLEGED FORGERY OF CERTIFICATE ALLEGED FORGERY CERTIFICATE OF

WAS FULL OF IRREGULARITIES; ELECTION FULL OF WAS

- - NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE 2010

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELECTORAL THE ACT; WITH COMPLIANCE

PLIANCE (PARTY LOGO & NAME NOT NOT NAME & LOGO PLIANCE (PARTY

APC

PDP

PARTY

INEC

ORS.

BELLO

INEC & OR OR & INEC

NAME OF NAME OF

APC & 3ORS & APC

APC/ PRINCE PRINCE APC/

ABIODUN& 3 3 ABIODUN&

PRINCE DAPO PRINCE DAPO

ABUBAKAR SANI ABUBAKAR SANI

RESPONDENT

DAPO ABIODUN/ ABIODUN/ DAPO

APM PDM

APC

PARTY

LADE

ANOR

CHIEF CHIEF

ANOR

BU & OR & BU

DULLAHI

NAME OF NAME OF

SANYAOLU & & SANYAOLU

ABDUL-KABRI

MODUPEOLU MODUPEOLU

PETITIONER

ABUBAKAR AB

ADEKUNLE AKIN

LABOUR PARTY & & LABOUR PARTY

ADEBAYO ADELA ADEBAYO

EPT/NG/

EPT/OG/

EPT/OG/ EPT/OY/

EPT/OG/

SUIT SUIT NO

GOV/1/2019

GOV/03/2019

GOV/01/2019

GOV/02/2019

GOV/03/2019

OYO

NIGER

OGUN

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 59 -

IN MERIT. IN

HE WON.

THE STATE THE

TORAL ACT. ACT. TORAL

REASON(S)

PARTY WITHDRAW PARTY

TRIBUNAL

VAGUE AND MERE AND SPECULATIVE. VAGUE

RESULTS, AS THE EVIDENCE REMAINS EVIDENCETHE REMAINS AS RESULTS,

THE PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVE THAT THAT PROVE TO PETITIONERTHE FAILS

EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED INFLATION OF OF EVIDENCE ALLEGED OF INFLATION

THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO CALL CALL TO PETITIONERTHE FAILED THAT

DISMISSES THE PETITIONTHE LACKING FOR DISMISSES

THE ELECTIONTHE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED IT

15 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CLAIMED HE LOCAL 15

WITHDRAWN DUE TO THE INTEREST OF INTERESTTHE OF TO DUE WITHDRAWN

INEC DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ELECTHE WITH COMPLY NOT DID INEC

JUDGMENT IN A JUST MANNER DESPITE DESPITE JUDGMENTMANNER JUST A IN

A SINGLE WITNESS FROM POLLING UNIT SINGLE A

THE COURT RULED THAT THERE WAS NO NO WAS THERE THAT COURTTHE RULED

TO SHOW THAT HE WAS LEADING IN THE THE LEADING IN WAS HE THAT SHOW TO

UPHELD

ELECTION

DISMISSED

DECISION

COMPETENT

STRUCK OUT STRUCK OUT

STRUCK OUT

FOR LACK OF OF LACK FOR

PETITION FOR

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE

DISMISSED THE DISMISSED THE MERIT OF LACK

AND DISMISSED DISMISSED AND

ELECTED.

CANCELLATION

PDP-DOMINATED AREAS PDP-DOMINATED

NOT VALIDLY ELECTED VALIDLY NOT

RESPONDENT WAS NOT QUALIFIED QUALIFIED NOT WAS RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT SUBMITTED TO INEC; RESPONDENT INEC; SUBMITTEDTO

HIGHLY MILITARIZED SEEKING IT SEEKING IT MILITARIZED HIGHLY

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION BY INEC BY EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

TO CONTEST THE ELECTIONTHE BECAUSE CONTEST TO

OF DISPARITIES IN THE NAMES OF THE THE OF NAMES THE IN DISPARITIES OF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

AND THAT VOTES WERE VOTES CANCELLED IN THAT AND

THE GOVERNOR WAS NOT VALIDLY THE VALIDLY NOT GOVERNOR WAS

ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE THE THE ON ELEC GROUNDS THAT

TION WAS NOT FREE AND FAIR AND AND FAIR AND FREE NOT WAS TION

APC

PDP

PARTY

INEC

LALONG

MR. SIMON SIMON MR.

NAME OF NAME OF

NYESOM WIKE/ NYESOM WIKE/

RESPONDENT

PDP

PPP AAC

ADP

PARTY

USENI

FINGESI

BIOKPOM

EDANUKO

NAME OF NAME OF

ABOAWARA MR. VICTOR VICTOR MR.

MR CLIFFORD CLIFFORD MR

PETITIONER JEREMIAH SEN.

ISAAC WONWUISAAC

EPT/RS/

SUIT SUIT NO

GOV/03/2019

GOV/02/2019

GOV/01/2019

GOV/04/2019

RIVERS

STATES

PLATEAU

S/N

60 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

SEL.

REASON(S)

WITHDRAWN

SOME OF THE DOCUMENTARY DOCUMENTARY THE SOME OF

TRIBUNAL

PETITIONER COULD NOT ADDUCE ADDUCE PETITIONER NOT COULD

EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THEIR EVIDENCECLAIMS. TO ESTABLISH

TESTIMONY OF SOME OF THE WITNESSES WITNESSES THE TESTIMONY SOME OF OF

WERE NOT PROPERLY CERTIFIED; AND THE THE CERTIFIED; AND PROPERLY WERE NOT

PETITIONERS FAILED TO ADDUCE ENOUGH ADDUCE ENOUGH TO PETITIONERS FAILED

MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW THE REQUIREMENTTHE OF MEET

WITHDRAWAL BY PETITIONERS BY COUN WITHDRAWAL

PETITION WAS DISMISSED AS A RESULT DISMISSEDRESULT A AS WAS PETITION

OF IT INCOMPETENCE AND FAILURE TO TO INCOMPETENCE IT OF FAILURE AND

STRUCK OUT AFTER THE PETITION WAS WAS PETITIONTHE STRUCK AFTEROUT

EVIDENCE PUT FORWARD BY THE PETITIONERTHE BY EVIDENCE FORWARD PUT

ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO ENOUGH EVIDENCE

WERE BASED ON HEARSAY. IT WAS HELD THAT THAT HELD WAS IT WERE BASEDHEARSAY. ON

MISSED

NOMINEE

DISMISSED

DECISION

WAS A PARTY A PARTY WAS

STRUCK OUT

RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

PETITION DIS

THE APPEAL BY APPEALTHE BY

PETITION DIS

PETITION WAS PETITION WAS

HAVING SHOWN SHOWN HAVING

HEREBY UPHELD HEREBY UPHELD

PROOF THAT THE THE PROOF THAT

1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT 1ST

THE 1ST AND 2ND 2ND AND 1ST THE

PDP

RECORDS OF RESULTS. OF RECORDS

CAST IN THE ELECTIONTHE CAST IN

ELECTIVE POSITIONS ZAMFARA IN

ALLEGED THAT THE THE ELECTIONALLEGED THAT WAS

MARRED WITH MARRED IRREGULARITIES

THAT MUHKTAR AT THE TIME TIME THE THE OF MUHKTAR AT THAT

BY THE MAJORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES VOTES MAJORITYTHE BY LAWFUL OF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S) PLIANCE WITH THE ELECTORALTHE ACT& WITH PLIANCE

THAT INEC WAS AWARE THAT THE APC APC THE THAT AWARE WAS INEC THAT

THAT HE (IDRIS) WAS NOT THE WINNER WINNER THE NOT WAS (IDRIS) HE THAT

THE PETITION WAS GROUNDED ON GROUNDED ON WAS PETITIONTHE

THE FACT THAT THE THE ELECTION THAT THE WAS FACT

OF RETURN TO IDRIS ON THE GROUNDS GROUNDS THE IDRIS ON TO RETURNOF

A SPONSORED CANDIDATE OF THE APC APC THE OF SPONSOREDA CANDIDATE

OF THE ELECTIONSTHE SHOWNOF AS INECS BY

ELECTION WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO CON TO QUALIFIED NOT ELECTIONWAS

MATAWALLES PETITION CHALLENGING IS MATAWALLES

TEST. THE PETITION CLAIMS HE WAS NOT NOT WAS PETITIONTHE CLAIMS HE TEST.

INVALID ON THE GROUNDTHE NON-COM OF ON INVALID

INEC’S DECISION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATE ISSUE A TO INEC’S DECISION HOLD PRIMARIES NOT DID PARTY THE AS

TO NOMINATE IDRIS AS ITS FLAG BEARER. BEARER. FLAG ITS IDRIS AS NOMINATE TO

CORRUPT PRACTICES; NOT DULY ELECTED DULY PRACTICES;CORRUPT NOT DID NOT SPONSOR CANDIDATES ACROSS ACROSS SPONSOR CANDIDATES NOT DID

PDP

APC

PARTY

WAL

(INEC)

MUKHTAR MUKHTAR

PDP / INEC / PDP

NATIONAL NATIONAL

NAME OF NAME OF

ELECTORAL

INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

SHEHU IDRIS/ SHEHU IDRIS/

COMMISSION COMMISSION

TORAL COMMIS TORAL

NATIONAL ELEC NATIONAL

INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

AMINU TAMBU AMINU

CONGRESS (APC)CONGRESS

DARIUS ISHAKUDARIUS

SION (INEC)/IDRIS SION (INEC)/IDRIS

MUKHTAR SHEHU/ MUKHTAR

RESPONDENT

ALL PROGRESSIVESALL

SDP

APC

PDP

APGA

PARTY

ALIYU

ELEKIMA

LE/ INEC LE/

DANLADI

ABDULLA

NAME OF NAME OF

MR. AHMED AHMED MR.

ANCE(APGA)

GRAND ALLI

MR. PRECIOUS PRECIOUS MR.

PETITIONER

ALH. (DR) SANI SANI (DR) ALH.

PROGRESSIVES

BELLO MOHAM BELLO

HISHINKAFI/ ALL HISHINKAFI/ ALL

MED MATTAWAL MED

EPT/RS/

EPT/SKT/ EPT/ZM/

EPT/ZM/

SUIT SUIT NO

GOV/1/2019

GOV/2/2019

GOV/05/2019

GOV/01/2019

RIVERS

TARABA

SOKOTO

STATES

ZAMFARA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 61 -

9/7/2019

REASON(S)

LISH HIS CASE HIS LISH

TIONALLY UNQUALIFIED. TIONALLY

TRIBUNAL

PETITIONERS APPLIED FOR COUNSEL

THE PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO ESTAB TO ABLE WAS PETITIONERTHE

THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS EDUCA WAS RESPONDENTTHE THAT

A WITHDRAWAL OF THE PETITIONSTHE ON OF WITHDRAWAL A PETITIONER COULD NOT PROVE IN HIS PROVEPETITIONER HIS IN NOT COULD

COULD NOT PROVE IN HIS TESTIMONY TESTIMONY PROVE HIS IN NOT COULD

QUALIFIED. THE THE PETITIONERS QUALIFIED. WITNESS

ARGUMENTS THAT BELLO MOHAMMED MOHAMMED BELLO THAT ARGUMENTS

MATAWALLE WAS NOT EDUCATIONALLY EDUCATIONALLY NOT WAS MATAWALLE

HELD

DENT

PETITION

DISMISSED DISMISSED

DECISION

TO 1STTO AND

STRUCK OUT

PETITION UP

2ND RESPON2ND

WITH COST OF OF WITH COST

ELECTIONS.

SCHOOL CERTIFICATE LEVEL SCHOOL CERTIFICATE

MOHAMMED SANI TOKAROS PETITIONTOKAROS IS MOHAMMED SANI

BY REASON OF CORRUPT PRACTICES REASON CORRUPT BY OF AND

MUKHTAR SHEHU IDRIS AS WINNER OF THE THE WINNER OF SHEHU IDRIS AS MUKHTAR

FIELDED HIM AS THE PARTY’S CANDIDATE. PARTY’S THE FIELDED AS HIM

IN THE 1999 THE CONSTITUTION IN 1999 THE AND 2010

AND BECAUSE APC DID NOT CONDUCT NOT DID APC PRI BECAUSE AND CHALLENGING INEC’S DECISION TO ISSUE A ISSUE A TO CHALLENGING INEC’S DECISION

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

CHALLENGING INEC’S DECISION TO ISSUE A ISSUE A TO CHALLENGING INEC’S DECISION

BALA BELLO MARUS PETITION MARUS CHALLENG IS BALA BELLO

ON THE GROUNDS THAT HE (MUKHTAR) WAS WAS (MUKHTAR) HE THAT GROUNDSTHE ON

MATAWELLE ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS WAS HE THAT GROUNDTHE ON MATAWELLE

ING INEC’S DECISION TO WRONGLY DECLARE DECLARE WRONGLY TO INEC’SING DECISION

ELECTION HAVING NOT BEEN EDUCATED TO TO BEEN EDUCATED ELECTION NOT HAVING

CERTIFICATE OF RETURN TO MATAWALLE ON ON MATAWALLE TO RETURN OF CERTIFICATE

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONSTHE OF WITH NON-COMPLIANCE

NOT QUALIFIED TO STAND FOR THE ELECTIONTHE FOR STAND TO QUALIFIED NOT

MARIES AND THE ELECTION WAS INVALIDATED INVALIDATED ELECTIONTHE WAS AND MARIES

ELECTORAL ACT. THE 2ND RESPONDENT WAS WAS RESPONDENT2ND THE ELECTORAL ACT.

NOT EDUCATIONALLY QUALIFIED TO CONTEST CONTEST TO QUALIFIED EDUCATIONALLY NOT

GOVERNORSHIP ELECTIONS HELD ON 9/3/2019 GOVERNORSHIP ELECTIONS9/3/2019 HELD ON

THE 2010 ELECTORAL ACT AMENDED) (AS AND 2010 THE

PROVISIONS INECS ELECTORAL OF GUIDELINES

OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND STILL STILL AND QUALIFICATIONS EDUCATIONAL OF

THE PARTY WAS AWARE OF MATAWALLES LACK LACK MATAWALLES OF AWARE WAS PARTY THE

INCLUDED BECAUSE THE PETITIONERTHE CLAIMED BECAUSE INCLUDED

AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CONDUCTTHE SAID OF FOR REGULATIONS AND

CERTIFICATE OF RETURN TO BELLO MOHAMMED MOHAMMED BELLO TO RETURN OF CERTIFICATE THE GROUNDS THAT HE (MATAWALLE) WAS NOT NOT WAS (MATAWALLE) HE THAT GROUNDSTHE

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AS STIPULATED STIPULATED AS QUALIFICATIONS EDUCATIONAL

QUALIFIED TO STAND FOR THE ELECTION DUE TO ELECTIONTHE TO FOR DUE STAND TO QUALIFIED

APC

PDP

PARTY

HAMMED HAMMED

NAME OF NAME OF

BELLO MO BELLO

SION SION (INEC)

MATAWALLE/

HU IDRIS/ INEC IDRIS/ HU

MUKHTAR SHE MUKHTAR INDEPENDENT

BELLO MOHAMMED MOHAMMED BELLO

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PARTY DEMOCRATIC

COMMISSION COMMISSION (INEC)

(PDP)/INDEPENDENT (PDP)/INDEPENDENT

RESPONDENT MATTAWALE/PEOPLES MATTAWALE/PEOPLES

TORAL COMMIS TORAL

NATIONAL ELEC NATIONAL

NATIONAL ELECTORAL NATIONAL

APP

ANP

PARTY

ACCORD

MARU0

NAME OF NAME OF

BALA BELLO BALA BELLO

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED

SANI TOKAROSANI

PETITIONER

ZAYYANUSALI

SU(HASKE)/APP

EPT/ZM/

SUIT SUIT NO

GOV/3/2019

GOV/4/2019

GOV/5/2019

STATES

ZAMFARA

S/N

62 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

CLAIM

COURT

REASON(S)

ELECTORAL ACT

PROVING THEIR PETITION

TRIBUNAL

SPECIFIED TIME REQUIRED THE BY

PETITIONER DUMPED EVIDENCE IN

THE BURDEN PLACED ON THEM IN THEM IN BURDENTHE ON PLACED

PETITIONER COULD NOT PROVE HIS PROVEPETITIONER HIS NOT COULD

THEY FAILED TO APPLY FOR PRE-TRI FOR APPLY TO THEY FAILED

AL INFORMATION SHEET WITHIN THE THE WITHIN SHEET INFORMATION AL

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO DISCHARGE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

MISSED

DISMISSED

DECISION

PETITION DIS

WITHOUT CANDIDATE. A

THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE. THE OFFICETHE OF

-USAGE OF CARD READER OF -USAGE

OVER VOTING, OVER VOTING, IRREGULARITIES,

YOUR PETITIONER AVERT THAT THE FIRST FIRST THE THAT PETITIONER YOUR AVERT

OVER VOTING, OVER VOTING, IRREGULARITIES,

NATIONAL DIPLOMA (CIVIL ENGINEERING) (CIVIL ENGINEERING) DIPLOMA NATIONAL

THE FIRST RESPONDENT DID NOT POLL THE THE POLL FIRST RESPONDENTTHE NOT DID

TO CONTEST THE ELECTION AT THE TIME OF OF TIME THE ELECTIONTHE AT CONTEST TO

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

THE ELECTION. FURTHER TO THE PRECEDING PRECEDING THE ELECTION.THE TO FURTHER

CERTIFICATE OF THE KADUNA POLYTECHNIC KADUNATHE POLYTECHNIC OF CERTIFICATE

THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT QUALIFIED QUALIFIED NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE

TO THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL INDEPENDENTTHE NATIONAL TO

ELECTION HAVING CONTESTED THE ELECTIONTHE ELECTION CONTESTED HAVING

PARAGRAPH, THE THE PETITIONERS THAT PARAGRAPH, CONTEND

THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PERSONAL PERSONAL THE SUPPORT IN OF AFFIDAVIT THE

INTIMIDATION, VIOLENCE AND NON VIOLENCE NON AND INTIMIDATION, MAJORITY OF THE LAWFUL VOTES CAST AT THE THE CAST AT VOTES MAJORITY LAWFUL THE OF

HIS BIRTH TILL DATE HAS BEEN AND REMAINED BEEN REMAINED AND HAS DATE TILL BIRTHHIS INTIMIDATION, VIOLENCE AND NON VIOLENCE NON AND INTIMIDATION,

AS HALLIRUDAUDAJIKA, PRESENTED FORGED HALLIRUDAUDAJIKA, AS A

RESPONDENT WHOSE NAME FROM THE TIME OF OF TIME THE WHOSE FROM NAME RESPONDENT

COMMISSION (INEC) AS CAN BE GLEANED FROM GLEANED BE CAN COMMISSION (INEC) FROM AS

PARTICULARS OF PERSON SEEKING ELECTION TO PERSON OF SEEKING ELECTIONTO PARTICULARS

PDP

APC

PARTY

APC

JIKA

INEC

SENATORIAL 46 OF 105 PETITIONS 105 OF 46 SENATORIAL

NAME OF NAME OF

CLIFF & 2 ORS 2 CLIFF &

BINOS DAUDA BINOS DAUDA

YAROE & 2 ORS 2 & YAROE

ISHAKU ELISHA ISHAKU ELISHA

RESPONDENT

HALLIRU DAUDA HALLIRU DAUDA

APC

PDP

LIST OF PETITIONS ARISING FROM 2019 GENERAL ELECTION PETITIONS OF LIST 2019 ARISING FROM

PARTY

PDP

1 OR

MISAU

ABUBAKAR ABUBAKAR

NAME OF NAME OF

BINTA& 1 OR 1 BINTA& ISA HAMMA HAMMA ISA

SEN, AHMAD AHMAD SEN,

PETITIONER

GARBA DAHIRU

MO-ALLAHYIDI& MO-ALLAHYIDI&

SEN. GARBA MASI GARBA MASI SEN.

EPT/AD/

SUIT SUIT NO

BA/1/2019

BA/4/2019

EPT/NASE/

SN/01/2019

SN/02/2019

BAUCHI

STATES

ADAMAWA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 63 -

REASON(S)

ELECTORAL ACT

TRIBUNAL

SPECIFIED TIME REQUIRED THE BY

THEY FAILED TO APPLY FOR PRE-TRI FOR APPLY TO THEY FAILED

AL INFORMATION SHEET WITHIN THE THE WITHIN SHEET INFORMATION AL

THE SPECIFIED TIME REQUIRED BY THE THE REQUIREDTIME BY SPECIFIEDTHE

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO APPLY FOR FOR APPLY TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THE THE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THEIR PETITION. IN MADE ALLEGATIONS

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO APPLY FOR FOR APPLY TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

PRE-TRIAL INFORMATION SHEET WITHIN WITHIN SHEET PRE-TRIAL INFORMATION

DISMISSED

DECISION

TORAL ACT. TORAL

NORTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT. NORTH SENATORIAL

ACT. 2010. (AS AMENDED). (AS 2010. ACT.

HAS ATTAINED THE AGE OF 30 YEARS. 30 OF AGE THE ATTAINED HAS

THE ELECTION WAS INVALID BY BY INVALID ELECTIONTHE WAS

BE QUALIFIED FOR ELECTION FOR QUALIFIED BE INTER ALIA IF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S) AND/OR AND/OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH

IT WAS THE FIRST PETITIONER AND NOT THE THE FIRST PETITIONERTHE NOT AND WAS IT

UNDER SECTION 65(1) AND (2) OF THE 1999 1999 THE OF (2) AND UNDER SECTION65(1)

THIS PETITION IS HINGED ON THE THE PETITIONTHIS HINGED IS ON

PRACTICES NONCOMPLIANCE OR

INVALID BY REASON OF CORRUPT REASON CORRUPT BY OF INVALID CERTIFICATE LEVEL OR ITS EQUIVALENT. THE THE LEVEL EQUIVALENT. ITS OR CERTIFICATE

FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT SO EDUCATED EDUCATED SO NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENT

REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

HE HAS ATTAINED THE AGE OF 30 YEARS AND YEARS AND 30 OF AGE THE ATTAINED HAS HE

CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED A PROSPECTIVE AMENDEDCONSTITUTION AS A

GROUND THAT; THE THE ELECTION WAS GROUND THAT;

OF THE ELECTION BASED ON VOTES CAST AND CAST AND ELECTIONTHE VOTES BASEDOF ON

BER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR BAUCHI BAUCHI FOR ASSEMBLY NATIONAL THE OF BER

THE PROVISION OF THE ELECTORALTHE PROVISIONTHE OF WITH THE PROVISION OF THE ELECTHE PROVISIONTHE OF WITH OF THE LAWFUL VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTIONTHE CAST AT VOTES LAWFUL THE OF

FIRST RESPONDENT WHO SCORED A MAJORITY A WHO SCORED FIRST RESPONDENT

THE PETITIONERS AVER THAT FROM THE RESULT RESULT THE FROM THAT PETITIONERSTHE AVER

RECORDED AT THE RESPECTIVETHE POLLING UNITS, AT RECORDED

HAS BEEN EDUCATED UP TO AT LEAST SCHOOL LEAST SCHOOL AT TO UP BEEN EDUCATED HAS

HAVE BEEN RETURNED AS DULY ELECTED MEM BEEN RETURNED DULY AS HAVE

ACCORDINGLY, THE FIRST PETITIONER OUGHT TO TO FIRST PETITIONERTHE OUGHT ACCORDINGLY,

CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF SENATOR SHALL SHALL OFFICESENATOR THE OF FOR CANDIDATE

AND THERE IS NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE THAT HE HE THAT VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE NO THERE IS AND

APC

PARTY

APC

INEC

(APC) JIKA

(INEC)

INEC

SENATORIAL

BAUCHI STATE. BAUCHI

BULKACHUWA

NAME OF NAME OF BAUCHI STATE. BAUCHI

BAUCHI NORTH NORTH BAUCHI

COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER,

TORIAL DISTRICT. TORIAL

RUDAUDAJIKA

RT. HON. HALLI HON. RT.

RETURNING OFFICER,

RESIDENT ELECTORAL

ADAMU MOHAMMED MOHAMMED ADAMU

RESIDENT ELECTORAL

RESPONDENT BAUCHI NORTHBAUCHI SENA

ADAMUBULKACHUWA

HALLIRUDAUDA

PRP

PDP

PRP

NNPP

PARTY

PRP

(PDP)

M. NAZIF M.

YUMISAU

BA/9/2019

EPT/NASE/

NAME OF NAME OF

CRATIC PARTY PARTY CRATIC

PETITIONER

SEN.SULEIMAN SEN.SULEIMAN

PEOPLE DEMO

HON. BAPPAALI HON.

SUIT SUIT NO

BA/7/2019

BA/8/2019

EPT/NASE/

BA/9/2019

EPT/NASE/

BA/11/2019

BAUCHI

STATES

S/N

64 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

REASON(S)

ELECTORAL ACT

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

TRIBUNAL

SPECIFIED TIME REQUIRED THE BY

THEY FAILED TO APPLY FOR PRE-TRI FOR APPLY TO THEY FAILED

AL INFORMATION SHEET WITHIN THE THE WITHIN SHEET INFORMATION AL

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

UPHELD

ELECTION

DISMISSED

DECISION

-ETC.

AL ACT

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

THE THIRD RESPONDENT DID NOT THIRD RESPONDENT NOT DID THE -RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

POLL MAJORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES VOTES POLL MAJORITY LAWFUL OF

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTOR NON-COMPLIANCE-

APC

PDP

PARTY

INEC

MORO

NAME OF NAME OF

EMMANUEL EMMANUEL

PATRICK ABBA ABBA PATRICK

GABRIEL TOR

PATRICK ABBA ABBA PATRICK

WUASUSWAM

YISAORKER-JEV

AGARBA DAHIRU AGARBA RESPONDENT

PRP

APC

APDA

PARTY

MIMI

USMAN

IBRAHIM

ABUBAKAR ABUBAKAR

NAME OF NAME OF

PETITIONER

GEORGE AKUME

LAWAL HUSSAINI HUSSAINI LAWAL

STEPHEN LAWANI

ADZAPE- ORUBIBI ADZAPE- ORUBIBI

EPT/

SUIT SUIT NO

EPT/NASE/

BA/13/2019

BN/S/01/2019

BN/S/02/2019

BN/S/08/2019

BN/S/09/2019

BENUE

BAUCHI

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 65 -

PETITION

REASON(S)

CASE CASE WITHDRAWN

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

TRIBUNAL

DICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE THE TRIBUNALTHE PETI HELD THAT

TIONER’S CASE WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS CASE TIONER’S

IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE THE HEAR JURISDICTION LACKS IT TO

THE TRIBUNAL RULED THAT THE THE TRIBUNALTHE PETIRULED THAT

MATTER AND AS SUCH IT LACKS JURIS LACKS SUCH IT AS AND MATTER

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

TION BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONER WAS WAS PETITIONERTHE TION BROUGHT BY

A PRE- ELECTION MATTER AND AS SUCH ELECTIONPRE- A SUCH AS AND MATTER

APC

UPHELD

ELECTION

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE

CASE AGAINST CASE AGAINST TRIBUNAL THE

-PETITION WAS -PETITION WAS CASE AGAINST

DISMISSED THE DISMISSED THE

-ETC.

AL ACT

THE ELECTIONTHE

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

INTIMIDATION VIOLENCE.AND INTIMIDATION

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION OF THE THE OF EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

- NON USAGE OF CARD READER OF USAGE NON -

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S) - OVER VOTING, IRREGULARITIES, IRREGULARITIES, VOTING, OVER -

PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTION.THE IN PARTICIPATING

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

CANDIDATE WAS LAWFULLY NOMI LAWFULLY WAS CANDIDATE

PETITIONER FROM PARTICIPATING IN IN PETITIONER FROM PARTICIPATING

NATED BY HIS POLITICAL PARTY BUT BUT POLITICAL HIS BY PARTY NATED

WAS UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED FROM FROM EXCLUDED UNLAWFULLY WAS

PDP

PARTY

TYOUGH

ROBERT A

NAME OF NAME OF

JIE & ANOR & JIE

NTUFAM (DR) (DR) NTUFAM

SANDY OJAN SANDY

SANDY OJANG OJANG SANDY

ONOH & 2 ORS 2 ONOH &

GONOH& 2 ORS 2 GONOH&

OKO ROSEOKO OKO

RESPONDENT

APC

SDP

APC

PARTY

ANOR

SOLOMON SOLOMON

NAME OF NAME OF

IDORESOR& IDORESOR&

SEN. VICTOR VICTOR SEN.

NDOMA-EGBA

PETITIONER

WABILLY NYIAM WABILLY

BENJAMIN. WAYO BENJAMIN.

EPT/

EPT/CAL/

SUIT SUIT NO

SN/01/2019

SN/02/2019

SN/09/2019

BN/S/10/2019

BENUE

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

66 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) (90 DAYS).

AGAINST THEMAGAINST

REASON(S)

PETITION WAS WITHDRAWN PETITION WAS

TRIBUNAL

NULLIFIED THE ELECTION AND ASKED INEC TO ELECTIONTHE TO NULLIFIED ASKEDAND INEC

CONDUCT A FRESH ONE WITHIN THREE MONTHS THREE MONTHS WITHIN CONDUCT FRESH ONE A

THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT DEFEND THE CASE CASE THE DEFEND NOT COULD DEFENDANTS THE

THE TRIBUNAL HEADED BY JUSTICE C.O. ONYEABO, ONYEABO, TRIBUNAL HEADED JUSTICE BY C.O. THE

OF OVER VOTING AND IRREGULARITIESAND VOTING PREFERRED OVEROF

OF RETURN ISSUED TO MANAGER, STRESSING THAT THAT STRESSING MANAGER, TO RETURNOF ISSUED

HE ALSO ORDERED INEC TO WITHDRAW CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATE WITHDRAW TO ALSO ORDEREDHE INEC

THEM

PETITION

ASKED INEC TO ASKED TO INEC

DECISION

CERTIFICATE OF OF CERTIFICATE

JUSTICE C.O. ON JUSTICE C.O.

OF OF OVER VOTING

STRUCK OUT

THAT THE THE DEFEN THAT

YEABO, NULLIFIED NULLIFIED YEABO,

DEFEND THE CASE

HE ALSO ORDERED ALSO ORDERED HE ONE WITHIN THREE ONE WITHIN THREE

CONDUCT FRESH A RETURN ISSUED TO

THE ELECTIONTHE AND

MONTHS (90 DAYS). MONTHS (90

DANTS COULD NOT NOT COULD DANTS INEC TO WITHDRAW WITHDRAW TO INEC

ELECTION NULLIFIED:

PREFERRED AGAINST PREFERRED AGAINST

AND IRREGULARITIES AND

MANAGER, STRESSING STRESSING MANAGER,

TION

ED LGAS. ED

ACT 2010(AS AMENDED) ACT 2010(AS

CAST IN THE ELECTION.THE CAST IN

ELECTED AS RESULT OF CORRUPT CORRUPT OF ELECTED RESULT AS

DULY ELECTED MAJORITY A BY DULY OF

- 2ND RESPONDENT WAS DULY NOT NOT DULY WAS RESPONDENT2ND -

GROUND PETIFOR (S)

- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTORAL NON-COMPLIANCE- - VALIDLY 2ND NOT RESPONDENT WAS

SPONDENT DID NOT WIN BY BY WIN SPONDENT NOT DID

PRACTICES AT VARIOUS POLLING UNITS POLLING UNITS VARIOUS PRACTICES AT

LAWFUL VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT VOTES LAWFUL

IN THE VARIOUS WARDS THE IN WARDS AFFECT THE VARIOUS IN

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES VOTES MAJORITYTHE THE OF

ELECTORAL RETHE ACT AND

PDP

PARTY

IC PARTY IC

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC /MANAGER /MANAGER INEC

MICHAEL AMAH MICHAEL AMAH

RESPONDENT

JAMES EBIOWOUJAMES

PLE DEMOCRAT PLE

NNACHI OF PEO OF NNACHI

APC

PARTY

AGHAN

NAME OF NAME OF

CONGRESS CONGRESS

EWETA UDU EWETA

ONUNWAEZE ONUNWAEZE

PROGRESSIVE

PETITIONER

PRINCE OF ALL PRINCEALL OF

DR. EMMANUEL EMMANUEL DR.

EPT/DT/

EPT/EB/

SUIT SUIT NO

SEN/11/2019

SEN/01/2019

DELTA

EBONYI

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 67 -

CASE.

LACKS MERITLACKS

REASON(S)

LACK OF MERIT IN THE PETITIONERS’ PETITIONERS’ THE MERIT IN OF LACK

TRIBUNAL

DECIDED TO DECIDED TO COME EMPTY TRIBU THE HANDED TO

THE TRIBUNAL CHAIR JUDGE (HON. JUSTICE ADECK JUSTICETRIBUNAL ADECK CHAIR JUDGE (HON. THE

GAVE THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE SINCE THAT GROUNDTHE JUDGMENTTHE ON GAVE

NAL AND WAS BOUND TO RETURN EMPTYTO BOUND HANDED. WAS AND NAL

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO CALL WITNESSES FROM CALL TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

THE VENUE OF THE APC PRIMARIES, THE PETITIONERSTHE PRIMARIES, APC THE VENUE OF THE

UPHELD

ELECTION

UPHELD THE UPHELD THE

ELECTION

PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE

DECISION

GROUND THAT IN GROUND THAT

THE MERIT OF THE THE MERIT THE OF BEING PROVEN AS

PETITIONS THE ON

REQUIRED LAW BY

THE RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS THE

CASE THE CASE THE PETITION

IS LIABLE TO BE DIS BE TO LIABLE IS

AND AND DISMISSED THE

OBJECTION FILED BY

MISSED, HAVING NOT NOT HAVING MISSED,

2019

AL ACT

TORAL ACTTORAL

NULL NULL VOTES

HIGHEST VOTE

FIRST PETITIONER SCORED THE THE FIRST PETITIONER SCORED

WAS NOT A CANDIDATE AT THE THE AT CANDIDATE A NOT WAS

- THAT THE APC CANDIDATE DE CANDIDATE APC THE THAT -

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

SEN ADETUMBI ARE WASTED AND AND WASTED ADETUMBISEN ARE REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

CLARED WINNER WAS NOT EVEN A EVEN A NOT WAS WINNER CLARED

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

CANDIDATE IN THE SAID ELECTIONSAID THE IN CANDIDATE

- THAT SENATOR ADETUMBI APC OF SENATOR THAT -

- THAT THE ALL VOTES TO ALLOTTED THAT -

ELECTION HELD ON 23RD FEBRUARY ELECTION FEBRUARY 23RD HELD ON

- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTOR NON-COMPLIANCE-

APC

PDP

APC

PARTY

INEC

SIONER SIONER

FRANCIS

CLIFFORD

-SENATOR -SENATOR

NAME OF NAME OF

ADETUNMI

OLUBUNMI

ORDIAAKH RETURNING

IMIENMONA IMIENMONA

ALIMEKHENA ALIMEKHENA

OFFICER, EDO EDO OFFICER,

RIAL DISTRICTRIAL

RESIDENT ELEC

TORAL COMMIS TORAL

NORTH SENATO

RESPONDENT

PDP

APC

PDP

PARTY

FASEYI

MOMOH

NAME OF NAME OF

INEGBEDION INEGBEDION

JOHN OSAGIE

PETITIONER

SENATOR DURO DURO SENATOR

HON. ABUBAKAR HON.

EPT/ED/

EPT/3/19

SUIT SUIT NO

SEN/04/2019

SEN/05/2019

NA/LEGH/EK/

EDO

EKITI

STATES

S/N

68 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) PROCESS

HIS CASEHIS

REASON(S)

TO AVOID PITFALLS, THOSE THOSE PITFALLS, AVOID TO

QUESTIONABLE ELECTIONS

THE PETITIONTHE MERIT. LACKED

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERED THAT TRIBUNALTHE ORDERED THAT

ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE PROVE TO ENOUGH EVIDENCE

PETITIONER DID NOT ADDUCE PETITIONER ADDUCE NOT DID

MUST BE EXPUNGED IN ORDER EXPUNGEDMUST BE ORDER IN

NOT TO VITIATE THE THE ELECTORAL VITIATE TO NOT

TRIBUNAL

#300,000

DECISION

WITHDRAWN

ELECTION UPHELD

CHARGED PETITION

DEPOSITED IN THE BOXES AS AS BOXES THE DEPOSITED IN ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS NOT NOT IS IT THAT BASIS THE ON

DISMISSED ON BASIS DISMISSED BASIS ON

BALLOTS WERE NOT PROPERLY PROPERLY WERE NOT BALLOTS

TIONS IN SOME POLLING UNITS SOME POLLINGTIONS IN UNITS MARKED THAT TENABLE TO SAY

THE TRIBUNAL NULLIFIED ELEC THE

CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENTS.THE CLAIMED BY

OF LACK OF MERIT AND MERIT AND OF LACK OF

ACTS

ACT 2010.

GUIDELINES.

STRUCK OUT

OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST. VOTES LAWFUL OF

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE

- ELECTORAL- MALPRACTICES

-THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS WAS FIRST -THE RESPONDENT

UNITS IN IKERE, GBONYIN AND GBONYIN AND IKERE, IN UNITS -INEC DECLARED RETURN (ON

EMURE LOCAL GOVERNMENTSEMURE LOCAL

(ON FEB. 24TH). (NON-COMPLI 24TH). FEB. (ON

FEB. 23RD), BEFORE COLLATION BEFORE COLLATION 23RD), FEB.

REASON MALPRACTICE OF AND

-THE ELECTION WAS INVALID BY BY INVALID ELECTION-THE WAS

ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONSTHE OF WITH ANCE

PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORALTHE PROVISIONS OF

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION BY INEC BY EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

-OVER VOTING IN SOME PULLING SOME PULLING IN VOTING -OVER

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NONCOMPLIANCE TO NONCOMPLIANCE TO ELECTORAL

NOT DULY ELECTED MAJORITY BY DULY NOT INEC THE OF 37 REGULATION THE

APC

PDP

PARTY

INEC

2ORS

ADEDAYO

NNAMANI NNAMANI

NAME OF NAME OF

UTAZI/INEC

CHIMAROKE CHIMAROKE

OGBONNIA & OGBONNIA &

INEC/ADUDA

- SENATOR AD SENATOR -

EMADU & 2ORS & EMADU

EYEYE CLEMENT EYEYE CLEMENT

SEN. IKE EKWER IKE SEN.

RESPONDENT

SEN. CHUKWUKASEN.

PDP

APC

PDM

PARTY

ANR

ODO

& ANR &

NKECHI NKECHI

CHRISTINE

NAME OF NAME OF

JULIET CHIKA

LAWRENCE & & LAWRENCE

JIMI ABIODUN ABIODUN JIMI

SENATOR OLU SENATOR

PETITIONER ODILIIBE KAKU BARR. EUGENE EUGENE BARR.

EZE OZOEMENE OZOEMENE EZE

CHINYERE DORIS

EPT/EN/

EPT/4/19

SUIT SUIT NO

NA/5/2019

EPT/EN/NA/

SEN/02/2019

NS/LEGH/EK/

SEN/04/2019

EKITI FCT

ENUGU

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 69 -

CASE

REASON(S)

TION TION WITHDRAW

HIS UNCLESHIS PRESSURIZED

PROVE THEIR ALLEGATIONS

TRIBUNAL

FOCUS ON HIS BUSINESS, THUS HE THUS HE BUSINESS, FOCUSHIS ON

THAT THE THE PETITIONERSTHAT UNABLE TO

PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO PROVE HIS PROVE HIS TO ABLE WAS PETITIONER

TO A FAMILY MEETING DURING WHICH MEETINGWHICH DURING FAMILY A TO

HIM TO WITHDRAW THE THE WITHDRAW PETITION TO HIM AND

THAT THE PETITIONER WAS SUMMONED SUMMONED WAS PETITIONERTHE THAT

HEEDED THE ADVICE AND THE APPLICATHE ADVICETHE AND HEEDED

LIFIED

PETITIONIS

18/04/2019

DECISION

STRUCKOUT

OKOROCHA.

HAVINGBEEN

WITHDRAWN

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE

CASE AGAINST CASE AGAINST

DISMISSED THE DISMISSED THE

ELECTION NUL

DISTRICT.

VIOLENCE

TORAL ACT 2010

CORRUPT PRACTICECORRUPT BRIBING OF

ELECTORAL MALPRACTICE CON

RITY WIDESPREAD VOTE AGENTS.

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

BUYING ACROSS THE SENATORIAL SENATORIAL THE BUYING ACROSS

ELECTORAL OFFICIALS SECUAND

TRARY TO THE THE TO TRARY PROVISIONS THE OF

ELECTORAL ACT2010 AS AMENDED AMENDED AS ELECTORAL ACT2010

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

IRREGULARITIES, OVER VOTING AND AND VOTING IRREGULARITIES, OVER

IRREGULARITIES, INTIMIDATION AND AND IRREGULARITIES, INTIMIDATION

APC

PDP

PARTY

ORS

APC

ROCHA

GOJE & 2 GOJE &

DANJUMA

NAME OF NAME OF

MOHAMMED

DINO DINO MELAYE

ROCHAS OKO

RESPONDENT

PDP

APC

APGA

PARTY

AN0R

LAMIDO LAMIDO &

NAME OF NAME OF

USMANUMAR

PETITIONER

OSITA IZUNASO OSITA

JONES ONYERIRI

SMART ADEYEMI

HR/201

SUIT SUIT NO

EPT/GM/01/

EPT/SEN/08/2019

EPT/SEN/13/2019

IMO

KOGI

GOMBE

STATES

S/N

70 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) CASE

REASON(S)

PETITION MERIT LACKS

PETITION WITHDRAWN

TRIBUNAL

PETITIONER COULD NOT PROVE HIS PROVEPETITIONER HIS NOT COULD

MISSED

UPHELD

ELECTION

DISMISSED

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

UPHELD AND UPHELD AND

PETITION DIS

AL ACT.

TORAL ACTTORAL

LAWFUL VOTE LAWFUL

MALPRACTICE

IRREGULARITIES

NONCOMPLIANCE

MAJORITY OF THE VOTE CAST VOTE MAJORITY THE OF

RESPONDENT DID NOT WIN BY BY WIN RESPONDENT NOT DID

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY OF THE MAJORITY BY WIN THE OF NOT DID

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

APC

PARTY

2 ORS 2

TINUBU

ADEOLA

SENATOR SENATOR

SOLOMON SOLOMON

NAME OF NAME OF

ALMAKURA ALMAKURA

ABDULLAHI ABDULLAHI

OLAMILEKAN OLAMILEKAN

INEC & 35 ORS 35 & INEC

HON.SENATOR HON.SENATOR

UMAR TANKO& TANKO& UMAR

ADAMU& 2 ORS 2 ADAMU&

OLUREMI SHADE SHADE OLUREMI

RESPONDENT

PDP

PARTY

LAHI

ANOR

GBADEBO GBADEBO

ALH BALA BALA ALH

NAME OF NAME OF

DAVID ONITIRI DAVID

YA ADOKWE & YA

PETITIONER

RHODES-VIVOR

ESV ADESUMBO ADESUMBO ESV PRINCE ABDUL

AHMED ALIYU & AHMED ALIYU &

SULEIMAN ASONSULEIMAN

EPT/LAG/

SUIT SUIT NO

SEN/5/2019

SEN/9/2019

SEN/04/2019

SEN/05/2019

SEN/06/2019

EPT/NSHA/NA/

LAGOS

STATES

NASARAWA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 71 -

WITHDRAWN

REASON(S)

WITHDRAWN

TRIBUNAL

DIDN’T FILL PRETRIAL WITHIN TIME DIDN’TWITHIN PRETRIAL FILL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

MISSED

DISMISSED

DECISION

AND IT WAS AND WAS IT

STRUCK OUT

STRUCK OUT STRUCK OUT

IT WAS WITH WAS IT

PETITION DIS

6TH OF APRIL APRIL OF 6TH

PETITION DIS

ACCORDINGLY

DRAWN THE ON DRAWN

TICES

RETURN

TORAL ACTVOTING) TORAL (OVER

OF THE LAWFUL VOTES CAST VOTES LAWFUL THE OF UNDUE NON-COMPLIANCE&

LOGO FROM THE BALLOT LIST BALLOT THE FROM LOGO

- UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION OF ITS ITS OF EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL -

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NOT DULY ELECTED MAJORITY BY DULY NOT

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

UNDUE RETURN & CORRUPT PRACUNDUE RETURN CORRUPT &

APC

PARTY

INEC

(INEC)

ODEBIYI

NAME OF NAME OF FICEAJAYI/

SANI MUSASANI TOLU HON.

MUHAMMED MUHAMMED

INEC & 26 ORS 26 & INEC

TAPHA & 3 ORS. 3 & TAPHA

RESPONDENT

OLALEKAN MUS BORO SENATOR

PDP

MPN

PARTY

PANEL 1 PANEL

NIGERIA

SA& ANOR SA&

SOSANWO

NAME OF NAME OF

ODUNLEYE ODUNLEYE

MR AYOOLA AYOOLA MR

PETITIONER

HON. ODUNJO ODUNJO HON.

IBRAHIM YUNU

IBRAHIM ISYAKU

MEGA PARTY OF OF MEGA PARTY

ABIODUN & 1 OR OR 1 ABIODUN &

(SEN)

O1/2019

SUIT SUIT NO

EPT/NAS/

SEN/09/2019

REP/03/2019

SEN/04/2019

EPT/NG/SEN/

OND/04/2019

EPT/NSHA/NA/

EPT/OG/NASS/

NIGER

OGUN

ONDO

STATES

NASARAWA

S/N

72 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) WITNESSES.

REASON(S)

LACKED MERIT. LACKED

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

REASONABLE DOUBT

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE PROVE TO PETITIONERTHE FAILED

POINT OF PRESENTING THE PETITIONTHE PRESENTINGPOINT OF

FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE BEYOND THEIR CASE BEYOND PROVE TO FAILED

ANY OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE THE GROUNDSTHE RAISED IN OF ANY

THEY ALSO FAILED TO CALL RELEVANT CALL RELEVANT TO THEY ALSO FAILED

PAY THE REQUIRED FILING FEES AS THE THE REQUIREDTHE FILING AS FEES PAY

NON SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS. PETITIONS CLAIMS. SUBSTANTIATE NON

BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SECRETARY. AND BEFORE TRIBUNAL THE SECRETARY.

PETITION AND THE PETITIONER DID NOT PETITIONERTHE PETITION NOT DID AND

WITNESSES.

DISMISSED

DECISION

TO PROVE HIS CLAIM PROVE CLAIM HIS TO

OF OVER-VOTING AND OVER-VOTINGOF AND

PLIANCE AND HE ALSO PLIANCE ALSO HE AND

PETITION DISMISSED AS

THE PETITIONERS FAILED PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

SUBSTANTIAL NON-COM SUBSTANTIAL

FAILED TO CALL RELEVANT CALL RELEVANT TO FAILED

TORAL ACTTORAL

CREDITATION

OVER-VOTING

ELECTORAL MALPRACTICES

ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES AC IN

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ELECTHE NON-COMPLIANCE OF

OVER-VOTING AND SUBSTANTIAL OVER-VOTING SUBSTANTIAL AND

APC

PDP

APC

PDP

PARTY

GUN

FOLARIN

BWACHA

SENATOR SENATOR

NAME OF NAME OF

IN 2 ORS & -,

SEN. TESLIM TESLIM SEN.

EMMANUEL EMMANUEL

FATAI& 2 ORS 2 FATAI&

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

SEN. B. ABDUL B. SEN.

SEN. T.K. FOLAR T.K. SEN.

SENATOR BALO SENATOR

RESPONDENT

PDP

APC

ADC

PARTY

PDP

APC

KA& OR

AMGUM

NAME OF NAME OF

CHIEF L.O. ILA CHIEF L.O.

MULIKAT& OR/ MULIKAT&

PETITIONER

SUMONU /ADC

HON. AKANDE A. AKANDE A. HON.

SEN. MONSURAT MONSURAT SEN.

BAUKAISHAYAG

EPT/OY/

EPT/TR/

EPT/OY/

SUIT SUIT NO

SEN/11/2019

SEN/09/2019

SEN/12/2019

SEN/16/2019

SEN/03/2019

OYO

TARABA

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 73 -

ITIES.

ELECTIONS

REASON(S)

THE PETITIONTHE

SECOND IN THE POLLS.THE IN SECOND

THAT THE THE RESPONDENT THAT

BETWEEN FIRST RETHE

DID NOT COMPLETE THE THE COMPLETE NOT DID

THAT THE THE ELECTIONTHAT WAS PETITIONERTHE PROVED

SUPERSEDE THE MARGIN

THE PETITIONTHE MERIT LACK THERE WAS OVER VOTING THERE WAS

ALLEGATION AND CLAIMS CLAIMS AND ALLEGATION

MARRED WITH MARRED IRREGULAR LACK OF EVIDENCE BY THE THE EVIDENCE OF LACK BY

SPONDENT AND THE FIRST FIRST THE SPONDENT AND

NYSC BEFORE CONTESTING BEFORENYSC CONTESTING

PETITIONERS WHO POLLED

PETITIONER TO BACK THE UP

AND THE THE AND CANCELLED VOTES

THE THE PETITIONERS WITHDREW

TRIBUNAL

DAYS

DISMISSED

DECISION

PETITION DISMISSED

THE ELECTIONTHE ORAND

DERED FOR A RERUN IN 7 7 RERUN IN DERED A FOR THE TRIBUNALTHE NULLIFIED

AS THE THE AS RIGHTFUL WINNER

POLLING WITHINUNITS 90

DECLARED THE PETITIONER

THE TRIBUNAL FA RULED IN THE

VOR OF THE PETITIONERTHE AND VOR OF

- -

TICES

ELECTION.

TEST ELECTION.TEST

TION TION INCONCLUSIVE.

HE CONTESTED ELECTION CONTESTED HE

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

BY MAJORITY OF THE LAWFUL VOTE CAST AT THE THE CAST AT VOTE MAJORITYBY LAWFUL THE OF

NATIONAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE OF SHIRA/ OF HOUSEREPRESENTATIVE OF NATIONAL

VIOLENCE ELECTORALAND MALPRAC

THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS NOT QUALIFIED TO CON TO QUALIFIED FIRST RESPONDENTTHE NOT IS

YUSUF OF THE (PDM) WAS UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED. UNLAWFULLY WAS (PDM) THE YUSUF OF

MORE THAN THE LEAD MARGIN BETWEENTHE FIRST THE THAN MORE

NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE CORP WHEN WHEN SERVICE YOUTH CORP NATIONAL

HELD ON 23RDFEBRUARY, 2019 IN WHICH DECLARED WHICH DECLARED IN 2019 23RDFEBRUARY, HELD ON

THE PETITIONER STATES THAT THE ELECTION FOR THE ELECTIONTHE THE FOR THAT PETITIONERTHE STATES THAT WITH THE CANCELLATION OF 5211 (FIVE THOU (FIVE 5211 OF CANCELLATION THE WITH THAT

RESPONDENT THE AND FIRST PETITIONER, THIRD THE

RESPONDENT OUGHT TO HAVE DECLARED THE ELECTHE DECLARED HAVE TO RESPONDENT OUGHT

SAND TWO HUNDRED AND ELEVEN) VOTES, WHICH IS WHICH IS TWO SAND VOTES, HUNDRED ELEVEN)AND

THE PETITIONER THE COMPLETE HIS NOT DID

ON THE 26THFEBRUARY, 2019 IN WHICH ENGR. AHMAD AHMAD WHICH ENGR. IN 2019 26THFEBRUARY, THE ON

GIADE FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY OF BAUCHI STATE WAS WAS STATE GIADE FEDERAL CONSTITUENCYBAUCHI OF

THAT THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY ELECTED DULY NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE THAT

APC

PRP

APC

PARTY

70 OF 215 PETITIONS 215 OF 70

FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY

APC

INEC

3 ORS 3

FAGGO

& 2 ORS

NAME OF NAME OF

ELECTORAL

UMAR SARKI UMAR

HON ABDULHON

MODDIBBO & MODDIBBO &

ABDULKADIR

ABDULRAUF A A ABDULRAUF

THE RESIDENT RESIDENT THE BAUCHI STATE BAUCHI

RAZAK NAMDAS NAMDAS RAZAK

COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER KANI ABUBAKAR

RESPONDENT

LIST OF PETITIONS ARISING FROM 2019 GENERAL ELECTION PETITIONS OF LIST 2019 ARISING FROM

PDP

APC

PARTY

PDM

BABA

YUSUF

DO 1OR &

NAME OF NAME OF

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED

KABIRU & 1OR KABIRU &

PETITIONER ENGR. AHMAD AHMAD ENGR.

HON. IBRAHIM IBRAHIM HON.

ALH. MUKHTAR MUKHTAR ALH.

JA’AFARUS RIBA JA’AFARUS

EPT/AD/

SUIT SUIT NO

BA/2/2019

BA/4/2019

FH/01/2019

EPT/NAHR/

FH/02/2019

EPT/NAHR/

BAUCHI

STATES

ADAMAWA

S/N

74 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) REASON(S)

THEIR PETITION

ELECTORAL ACT

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

THE SPECIFIED TIME REQUIRED BY THE THE REQUIREDTIME BY SPECIFIEDTHE

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO APPLY FOR FOR APPLY TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THE THE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED FOR APPLY TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THEIR PETITION. IN MADE ALLEGATIONS

PRE-TRIAL INFORMATION SHEET WITHIN WITHIN SHEET PRE-TRIAL INFORMATION WITHIN SHEET PRE-TRIAL INFORMATION

DISMISSED

DECISION

ACT, 2010. (AS AMENDED). (AS 2010. ACT,

THE PETITIONERS STATED THAT THE 1ST THE 1ST THAT THE PETITIONERS STATED

ELECTORAL ACT, 2010. (AS AMENDED). (AS 2010. ELECTORAL ACT,

RESPONDENT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE BE TO QUALIFIED NOT WAS RESPONDENT

AND RETURN OF THE FIRST AND SECOND FIRST SECOND AND THE RETURNAND OF

WAS DECLARED RETURNEDAND WAS

ELECTED AS AFORESAID, WAS AT AT WAS ELECTED AFORESAID, AS

OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT VOTES LAWFUL OF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

THE ELECTION WAS INVALID BY REASON OF REASON BY OF INVALID ELECTIONTHE WAS

SAID ELECTION WAS INVALID BY REASON OF REASON BY OF INVALID ELECTIONSAID WAS FIED TO TO FIED THE CONTEST ELECTION.

BUT UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED BY THE THIRD THIRD THE BY EXCLUDED UNLAWFULLY BUT

FIRST PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY NOMINATED NOMINATED FIRST VALIDLY PETITIONER WAS THAT THE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THAT WHO

CORRUPT PRACTICESCORRUPT NONCOMPLI AND/OR

DAMENTAL INFRACTIONS OF THE ELECTORAL THE INFRACTIONS OF DAMENTAL

THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS THE WINNER OF THE THE WINNER OF THE RESPONDENT 1ST AS THE

RESPONDENT AND NONCOMPLIANCE OF THE THE RESPONDENT NONCOMPLIANCEAND OF

THE WINNER WAS INVALID BY REASON OF THE THE REASON BY OF INVALID WAS WINNER THE

RESPONDENTS BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AS THIRD RESPONDENT AS THE RESPONDENTS BY

RETURN THE AS WINNER THE OF ELECTION. THE

PETITIONERS STATE THAT THE DECLARATION OF OF DECLARATION THE THAT PETITIONERS STATE

THE TIME OF ELECTION OF TIME QUALI NOT THE

ANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF THE ELECTORALTHE PROVISIONTHE OF WITH ANCE

CORRUPT PRACTICES,CORRUPT IRREGULARITIES FUNAND

THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE ELECTIONTHE THAT PETITIONERSTHE CONTEND

THE FIST RESPONDENT DID NOT POLL MAJORITY RESPONDENT FIST THE NOT DID

PDP

APC

PARTY

PDP

APC

INEC

GOLOLO

DOGARA

IBRAHIM

MASHEMA

NAME OF NAME OF

MED GARBA GARBA MED

BASHIR UBA BASHIR UBA

HON. YAKUBU YAKUBU HON.

HON. MOHAM HON.

MAKAMAMISAU MAKAMAMISAU

RESPONDENT

APC

PDP

PDM

NNPP

PARTY

WABU

HIITAS

DULLAHI

NAME OF NAME OF

PETITIONER

ABUBAKAR AB

HON. DALHATU DALHATU HON.

AHMAD YARIMA AHMAD

ISA MOHAMMED MOHAMMED ISA

YUSUF ABDULLA

SUIT SUIT NO

BA/5/2019

BA/6/2019

EPT/NAHR/

BA/10/2019

BAUCHI

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 75 -

CONCLUDE.

REASON(S)

DENCE TO PROVE CASES HIS TO DENCE

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

TRIBUNAL

POLLED SECOND IN THE POLLS.THE IN POLLED SECOND

THE ELECTION PETITION IS YET TO TO ELECTIONTHE YET PETITION IS

THERE WAS OVER VOTING THE THERE WAS AND

CANCELLED VOTES SUPERSEDE THE PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH EVI

MARGIN MARGIN BETWEEN FIRST RESPONTHE

DENT AND THE FIRST PETITIONER WHO FIRSTWHO PETITIONERTHE DENT AND

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THE THE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THEIR PETITION. IN MADE ALLEGATIONS

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

ING.

THE COURT COURT THE

UPHELD

ELECTION

DISMISSED

NULLIFIED THE NULLIFIED THE

PETITION IS

DECISION

PETITIONER

WITHIN 90 DAYS. WITHIN 90

JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT

ELECTION THE OF

STILL STILL ON-GO

IN FAVOUR OF OF FAVOUR IN

THE ELECTIONTHE A RERUN ELECTIONA

FIRST RESPONDENT FIRST RESPONDENT

AND ORDERED FOR ORDEREDAND FOR

IN 3 POLLING UNITS POLLING UNITS 3 IN

-ETC

AL ACT

CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELEC

MAJORITY OF THE VOTE CASTED VOTE MAJORITY THE OF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO CONTEST THE ELECTHE CONTEST TO QUALIFIED NOT WAS THE FIRST RESPONDENT DID NOT FIRST RESPONDENTTHE NOT DID

1999(AS AMENDED), THE FIRST RESPONDENT FIRST RESPONDENT THE AMENDED), 1999(AS

TION. THAT THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE THAT TION.

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

PLY WITH SECTION 138 (1) (A) (B) & & (B) (A) (1) WITH SECTION 138 PLY

TORAL ACT -RESP. DID NOT WIN BY BY WIN NOT DID ACTTORAL -RESP.

THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT COM RESPONDENTSTHE NOT DID

POLL MAJORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES VOTES POLL MAJORITY LAWFUL OF

TUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, FEDERALTHE REPUBLIC NIGERIA, OF TUTION OF

BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 66(1) (F) OF THE CONSTI THE OF VIRTUE(F) SECTION OF BY 66(1)

DULY ELECTED BY MAJORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES ELECTEDVOTES MAJORITY BY DULY LAWFUL OF

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

THE PETITIONERS IS ALLEGING THAT THAT PETITIONERSTHE ALLEGING IS

APC

PDP

INEC

(PDP)

(ADC)

PARTY

APC

INEC

INEC INEC

SORO

OMAR

OBUA/

OGEWU

NAME OF NAME OF

ALHAJI TATA ALHAJI TATA

REX- OGBUKU OGBUKU REX-

FRED AZIPAPU FRED AZIPAPU

AGADA DAVID DAVID AGADA

MANSUR MANU MANU MANSUR

RESPONDENT

JUDE AMIDITOR/ JUDE AMIDITOR/

PDP

APC

PDP

APC

PARTY

PRP

PDP

ROMA

NAME OF NAME OF

MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD

HOKWU/PDP AUWALJATAU

SAMSON AJA

NICK EWORONICK

DAYYABU CHI DAYYABU

PETITIONER

SAMUEL SAMUEL OGBUKU

EPT/

EPT/BY/

SUIT SUIT NO

EPT/NAHR/

BA/12/2019

BA/18/2019

REP/19/2019

BN/R/03/2019

BN/R/04/2019

BENUE

BAUCHI

STATES

BAYELSA

S/N

76 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) REASON(S)

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

TRIBUNAL

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

UPHELD

ELECTION

DECISION

-ETC.

AL ACT

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

PDP

APC

PARTY

GBANDE

RICHARD RICHARD

OTUMALE

NAME OF NAME OF

JAMIN BEMJAMIN

OGBU STEVE OGBU STEVE

ARD GBANDEARD

CRATIC PARTY CRATIC

MZONDU BEN MZONDU

PEOPLE DEEMO

IORKYAAN RICH IORKYAAN

RESPONDENT

APC

SDP

APC

PDP

PARTY

ITYAV

PAWA

WOMBO

CONRAD

SOLOMON SOLOMON

NAME OF NAME OF

ANDY OLIMA ANDY

DICSON ORLU DICSON ORLU

PETITIONER

JOSEPH TERFA

UTAAN TERHIDE TERHIDE UTAAN

EPT/

SUIT SUIT NO

BN/R/05/2019

BN/R/06/2019

BN/R/07/2019

BN/R/11/2019

BN/R/12/2019

BENUE

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 77 -

CASE

REASON(S)

ELECTION MATTER

VOTERS IN THE AREASTHE IN VOTERS

THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT TRIBUNALTHE IT HELD THAT

TION TO TION TO HEAR THE PETITION

PETITIONER DID NOT ADDUCE PETITIONER ADDUCE NOT DID

THE PETITIONER SUCCESSFULLY PETITIONERTHE SUCCESSFULLY

ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS PROVE HIS TO ENOUGH EVIDENCE

ER WAS A PRE- ELECTION MATTER ELECTIONPRE- A MATTER WAS ER

AND AS SUCH IT LACKS JURISDIC LACKS SUCH IT AS AND

LACKS LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE TRIBUNAL

WITH THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED NUMBERTHE REGISTERED OF WITH

THAT THE RESPONDENT RESULTS IN IN RESPONDENTTHE RESULTS THAT TITION BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONTHE TITION BROUGHT BY

THE TRIBUNAL RULED THAT THE THE TRIBUNALTHE PE RULED THAT

PROVED OVER VOTING BY SHOWING SHOWING BY VOTING PROVED OVER

PETITIONER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- PRE- A WAS PETITIONER’S IT CASE AS SOME UNITS DID NOT CORRESPOND CORRESPOND NOT SOMEDID UNITS

THE APC. THE

DECISION

AGAINST APCAGAINST

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE

AND DECLARED DECLARED AND

RULED IN FAVOR FAVOR RULED IN

MISSED AGAINST MISSED AGAINST

MISSED THE CASE

ELECTION UPHELD

RIGHTFUL WINNER

THE TRIBUNALTHE DIS

THE PETITIONERTHE AS OF THE THE OF PETITIONER

-ETC.

AL ACT

ELECTED

THE ELECTIONTHE

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

- MASSIVE OVER VOTING OVER MASSIVE -

PARTY BUT WAS UNLAWFULLY UNLAWFULLY WAS BUT PARTY

NOMINATED BY HIS POLITICAL POLITICAL HIS BY NOMINATED

- THE PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY THE VALIDLY - PETITIONER WAS

-CARD READER WAS NOT USED NOT WAS -CARD READER

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION OF THE THE OF EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

- THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS RESPONDENTTHE -

EXCLUDED FROM PARTICIPATING IN IN FROM PARTICIPATING EXCLUDED

PETITIONER FROM PARTICIPATING IN IN PETITIONER FROM PARTICIPATING

PDP

APC

PDP

APGA

PARTY

ORS.

& ANOR ANOR &

JARIGBE

ODAGBOYI

GODDAY S. S. GODDAY

NAME OF NAME OF

ALL PROGRESALL

ETABAIROM& 2 2 ETABAIROM&

HON. MICHAEL MICHAEL HON.

JARIGBE AGOM JARIGBE AGOM

SIVE CONGRESSSIVE

HERMA I. HEMBE I. HERMA

RESPONDENT

APC

PDP

APC

PDP

APC

PARTY

NGAJI

MOTO/APC

NAME OF NAME OF

TONU /PDP TONU

GAUL LEBO GAUL

DOROTHY K. K. DOROTHY

ADAMU O. EN O. ADAMU

PETITIONER

RT. HON. JOHN JOHN HON. RT.

JUDE OGBECHE JUDE OGBECHE

MR EGBE ABENG EGBE ABENG MR

JABENGO& ANORJABENGO&

EPT/

EPT/CAL/

EPT/CAL/ SUIT SUIT NO

FH/01/2019

FH/02/2019

HR/06/2019

BN/R/16/2019

BN/R/17/2019

BENUE

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

78 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

MATTER

REASON(S)

CASE CASE WITHDRAWN

AND DISMISSEDAND IT.

TRIBUNAL

DICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT LACKS LACKS IT THAT TRIBUNAL HELD THE

THE TRIBUNAL HEADED BY JUSTICE TRIBUNAL HEADED JUSTICE BY THE

THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE THE TRIBUNALTHE PETI HELD THAT

ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE-ELECTION A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S

TIONER’S CASE WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS CASE TIONER’S

COULD NOT PROVE HIS AS CASE AND PROVE CASE AND AS HIS NOT COULD ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

MATTER AND AS SUCH IT LACKS JURIS LACKS SUCH IT AS AND MATTER

THAT THE PETITION WAS INCOMPETENT WAS PETITIONTHE THAT

NGENE STRESSED THAT THE THE NGENE PETITIONER STRESSED THAT

APC

APC.

UPHELD

ELECTION

DISMISSED DISMISSED

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

AGAINST THE THE AGAINST

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE PETITION WAS PETITION WAS

CASE AGAINST CASE AGAINST

DISMISSED THE DISMISSED THE

THE ELECTIONTHE

-OVER VOTING -OVER VOTING

2010(AS AMENDED) 2010(AS

NOT DULY ELECTED. DULY NOT

POLLING UNITS IN THE SAID ELECTION.SAID THE POLLING IN UNITS

PARTY BUT WAS UNLAWFULLY UNLAWFULLY WAS BUT PARTY

NOMINATED BY HIS POLITICAL POLITICAL HIS BY NOMINATED

- THE PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY THE VALIDLY - PETITIONER WAS

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION OF THE THE OF EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

ELECTIONS DID NOT VALIDLY TAKE PLACE. TAKE VALIDLY ELECTIONS NOT DID

LESS THAN THE TOTAL NUMBERS OF VOTES TOTAL THANLESS THE

- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTORAL NON-COMPLIANCEACT -

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-THE SECOND RESPONDENT WAS WAS RESPONDENT SECOND -THE

-CARD READERS WERE NOT USED. WERE NOT -CARD READERS

3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE SAID ELECTIONSAID THE RESPONDENTS 3RD IS IN

EXCLUDED FROM PARTICIPATING IN IN FROM PARTICIPATING EXCLUDED ELECTIONS WERE CANCELLED WHERE AND/OR

- THAT THE THE MARGIN THAT THE - OF VOTES DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE 2ND AND BETWEEN AND 2ND THE PETITIONERSTHE AND

FROM THE WARDS AND POLLING UNITS WHERE WHERE POLLINGAND UNITS WARDS THE FROM

PETITIONER FROM PARTICIPATING IN IN PETITIONER FROM PARTICIPATING

AS RESULT OF CORRUPT PRACTICES AT VARIOUS VARIOUS PRACTICES CORRUPT OF AT RESULT AS - 2ND RESPONDENT WAS NOT VALIDLY ELECTED VALIDLY NOT WAS RESPONDENT2ND -

PDP

PARTY

INEC

2 ORS 2

NY EFENY

& ANOR &

ASUQUO

NAME OF NAME OF

RT. (HON) ETA (HON) ETA RT.

IROM ETABA& IROM ETABA&

HON. MICHAEL MICHAEL HON.

/ HON. OBERU HON. /

MBORA & ANORMBORA &

HON. ESSIEN AYI ESSIEN AYI HON.

DANIEL EFFIONG EFFIONG DANIEL AKPEFE ANTHO

RESPONDENT

APC

NRDD

PARTY

EDEM

1. RT. HON

HOIGBUYA

NAME OF NAME OF

EKPENYONG

BASSEY EKPO

AKIBA BASSEY AKIBA BASSEY

PETITIONER

INNOCENT CHI

NKPANAM OBO- NKPANAM DOMINIC AQUA

MA OVAT& ANOR OVAT& MA

MONDAY OVWIG MONDAY

EPT/DT/

EPT/CAL/

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/07/2019

HR/08/2019

HR/10/2019

HR/12/2019

HR/06/2019

DELTA

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 79 -

GRANTED

REASON(S)

BEFORE THE COURT

DENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO DENCE

PETITION WAS WITHDRAWN PETITION WAS

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONER’STHE CLAIM LACKED

GRAND OF GRANDPETITIONS OF MERIT LACK PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH EVI

COURT WHY HIS PRAYERS SHOULD BE SHOULD BE PRAYERS HIS WHY COURT

MERIT AND COULD NOT PROVE TO THE THE TO PROVE NOT MERIT COULD AND

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

WINNER

UPHELD

PETITION

ELECTION

DISMISSED

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

UPHELD AND UPHELD AND

WAS DECLARED DECLARED WAS

THE PETITIONERTHE

2010

TORAL ACTTORAL

HIGHEST VOTE

AL ACT 2010(AS AMENDED ACTAL 2010(AS

THAT THE THE ELECTIONTHAT THE AND

FIRST PETITIONER SCORED THE THE FIRST PETITIONER SCORED

VOTED CASED AT THE ELECTION.THE CASED AT VOTED

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS RESPONDENTTHE

RUPT RUPT PRACTICES NON-COMAND

RETURN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT 1ST THE RETURN OF

THE VOTES CAST IN THE ELECTIONTHE CAST IN VOTES THE

REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

ELECTED MAJORITY BY LAWFUL OF

THE PRINCIPAL OF ELECTORAL OF ACT PRINCIPAL THE

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF DID NOT WIN BY THE MAJORITYTHE BY WIN OF NOT DID TORAL ACT AND THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENT THE ACTTORAL AND

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

PLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONTHE AND WITH PLIANCE IS INVALID BY THE REASON THE COR OF BY INVALID IS

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

PDP

APC

PARTY

INEC

/INEC

HOSA

NAME OF NAME OF

OGBAGA OF OF OGBAGA

CRATIC PARTY CRATIC

NWERU OGBEE NWERU OGBEE

HON. LAZARUS LAZARUS HON.

OCRATIC PARTY OCRATIC

MR. DENIS IDA MR.

OCRATIC PARTY OCRATIC

HON. SYLVESTER SYLVESTER HON. LIVINUS MAKWE

JUDE ISEIDEHEN JUDE ISEIDEHEN

RESPONDENT

OF PEOPLEOF DEM

PEOPLE’S DEMOPEOPLE’S

OF PEOPLEOF DEM

APC

PDP

PARTY

NAMBAM NAMBAM

CONGRESS

NAME OF NAME OF

BONAYINMA

PROGRESSIVE

ALL PROGRESALL

NSHIL UCHEN

PETITIONER

JOHNSON AG

FESTUS OF ALL FESTUSALL OF IGBINEDION G.

SIVE CONGRESSSIVE

ODIIIFESINACHI ODIIIFESINACHI

COMR. CHINEDU CHINEDU COMR.

HON. OMOSEDE OMOSEDE HON.

MAURICE OF ALL ALL OF MAURICE

NWEKE OGAH OF NWEKE OGAH OF

HON. EHIOZUWA EHIOZUWA HON.

EPT/EB/

EPT/ED/

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/01/2019

HR/02/2019

REP/01/2019

REP/02/2019

REP/03/2019

EDO

EBONYI

STATES

S/N

80 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

ABLE ABLE DOUBT

REASON(S)

LACK IN MERIT IN LACK

TRIBUNAL

NOT PROVE REASON CLAIMS BEYOND NOT

LACK IN MERIT. THE PETITIONERTHE COULD MERIT. IN LACK

UPHELD

ELECTION

DECISION

VOTE

TORAL ACTTORAL

HIGHEST VOTE

FIRST PETITIONER SCORED THE THE FIRST PETITIONER SCORED

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

PETITIONER SCORED THE HIGHEST HIGHEST THE PETITIONER SCORED

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

PDP

APC

PARTY

INEC

/INEC

RESIDENT RESIDENT

NAME OF NAME OF

ELECTORAL

EGWAKHIDE EGWAKHIDE

(EDO STATE) (EDO STATE)

AISOWIEREN/

HON. PATRICK PATRICK HON. MWON L.G.A)

MWODE L.G.A)

OGHUMA/ INEC OGHUMA/ HON. JOHNSON JOHNSON HON.

JOE EDIONWELE EDIONWELE JOE

ELECTORAL OF

COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER

FICER (ORHION

RESPONDENT

OFFICER (UHUN

APC

PDP

PARTY

PDP

PATRICK

BOMHERE

NAME OF NAME OF

DR. BLESSING BLESSING DR.

AFEKADE AG

PETITIONER

DEACON IDIAKE IDIAKE DEACON

EPT/ED/

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/03/2019

HR/06/2019

HR/07/2019

EDO

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 81 -

REASON(S)

TIONERS’ CASE. TIONERS’

LACK OF MERIT IN THE PETITHE MERIT IN OF LACK

EMPTY HANDED. EMPTY HANDED.

EMPTY HANDED.

TRIBUNAL

ON THE GROUND THAT THE ON SINCE THE GROUND THAT

TO COME EMPTY HANDED TO THE THE EMPTYTO COME TO HANDED

PETITIONERS FAILED TO CALL WIT CALL TO PETITIONERS FAILED

ON THE GROUND THAT THE ON SINCE THE GROUND THAT

TO COME EMPTY HANDED TO THE THE EMPTYTO COME TO HANDED

PETITIONERS FAILED TO CALL WIT CALL TO PETITIONERS FAILED

THE TRIBUNAL CHAIR JUDGE (HON. TRIBUNAL CHAIR JUDGE (HON. THE

JUSTICE ADECK GAVE THE JUDGMENT JUDGMENT THE JUSTICE ADECK GAVE

NESSES FROM THE VENUE OF THE APC APC THE VENUE OF THE NESSES FROM JUSTICE ADECK GAVE THE JUDGMENT JUDGMENT THE JUSTICE ADECK GAVE

NESSES FROM THE VENUE OF THE APC APC THE VENUE OF THE NESSES FROM PRIMARIES, THE PETITIONERSTHE DECIDED PRIMARIES,

PRIMARIES, THE PETITIONERSTHE DECIDED PRIMARIES,

TRIBUNAL AND WAS BOUND TO RETURN TO BOUND WAS TRIBUNAL AND

UPHELD THE UPHELD THE

PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE

HAVING NOT NOT HAVING

DECISION

THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE

RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

THE PETITIONSTHE

GROUND THAT IN GROUND THAT

AND DISMISSED DISMISSED AND

THE MERIT OF THE THE MERIT THE OF BEING PROVEN AS

PETITIONS THE ON

REQUIRED LAW BY

THE RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS THE

CASE THE CASE THE PETITION

LIMINARY OBJEC

ON THE THE ON GROUND THE OF CASE THE

UPHELD THE PRE

IS LIABLE TO BE DIS BE TO LIABLE IS

TO BE DISMISSED, DISMISSED, BE TO

AND AND DISMISSED THE

OBJECTION FILED BY

BEING PROVEN AS BEING PROVEN AS

TION FILED BY THE THE TION FILED BY

REQUIRED LAW BY

PETITION LIABLE IS THAT IN THE MERIT MERIT THE IN THAT

MISSED, HAVING NOT NOT HAVING MISSED,

ELECTIONS.

FEBRUARY 2019. FEBRUARY

OF ITS CANDIDATE WAS ILLEGAL WAS CANDIDATE ITS OF

RESPONDENTS ARE WASTED VOTES. VOTES. RESPONDENTS WASTED ARE

FAILED TO CONDUCT TO PROPER PRIMARY FAILED

THAT THE VOTES CREDITED OR ALLOTTED CREDITED ALLOTTED OR VOTES THE THAT

TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS APC RESPONDENTS3RD APC AND 2ND THE TO

- PDP ALSO APPROACHED THE COURT TO TO COURTTHE ALSO APPROACHEDPDP -

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTORAL NON-COMPLIANCEACT

- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTORAL NON-COMPLIANCEACT-

-THE PETITIONER ALSO CLAIMED THAT APC APC PETITIONER-THE THAT ALSO CLAIMED

AT THE ELECTION FOR MEMBERSHIP OF THE ELECTIONTHE THE MEMBERSHIP FOR OF AT

AND THAT THE THE 1ST PETITIONER THAT AND OMOTOSHO

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HELD ON 23RD 23RD HELD ON HOUSEREPRESENTATIVES OF NICHOLAS OLUSOLA PDP IS THE CANDIDATE CANDIDATE THE IS PDP NICHOLAS OLUSOLA

DECLARE THAT THE VOTES ACCRUED TO THE THE THE VOTES TO ACCRUED DECLARE THAT

WITH THE MAJORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST CAST VOTES MAJORITYTHE WITH LAWFUL OF

CANDIDATES AND INEC RESPECTIVELY BE DIS BE RESPECTIVELY INEC AND CANDIDATES

- PDP APPROACHED THE COURT ON THE BASIS BASIS THE COURTTHE ON APPROACHED PDP -

COUNTENANCED AS WASTED AND NULL VOTES VOTES NULLAND WASTED COUNTENANCED AS

- PDP CLAIMED THAT APC FAULTY NOMINATION NOMINATION FAULTY APC THAT CLAIMED PDP -

APC

PARTY

-INEC

KUNLE

OWOLABI

NAME OF NAME OF

--BAR PETER

INEC /OLAREINEC

WAJUIBRAHIM WAJUIBRAHIM

RESPONDENT

PDP

PARTY

SOLA

AGBOOLA

NAME OF NAME OF

- OMOTOSHO OMOTOSHO -

HON KEHINDE KEHINDE HON

PETITIONER

NICHOLAS OLU

EPT/1/19

EPT/2/19

SUIT SUIT NO

NA/LEGH/EK/

EKITI

STATES

S/N

82 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

VOTES CAST. VOTES

REASON(S)

NUMBER OF VOTES CAST. VOTES NUMBER OF

TRIBUNAL

FORE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. BE TO FORE DESERVES

ELECTED BY A MAJORITY OF VALID ELECTED MAJORITY A BY VALID OF

WAS LACKING IN MERIT AND THERE MERIT AND IN LACKING WAS

BY A MAJORITY OF VOTES CAST. THE THE MAJORITY CAST. A BY VOTES OF

DENT DID NOT SCORE THE HIGHEST HIGHEST THE SCORE NOT DENT DID

THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE TO TO PROVE TO PETITIONERTHE FAILED

LEGATIONS, THEREFORE THE PETITION LEGATIONS,

THE RESPONDENT WAS DULY ELECTED DULY WAS RESPONDENTTHE

PETITION HAS NO MERIT WHATSOEVER. PETITION MERIT NO HAS

THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS FIRST SECOND AND THE

WERE NOT DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE ALTHE TO LINKED DIRECTLY WERE NOT

THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THAT PROVE TO PETITIONERTHE FAILED

THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE

THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE THE FIRST TRIBUNALTHE THAT RESPON

UPHELD

ELECTION

DECISION

LARITIES. LARITIES.

RESULTS. RESULTS.

VALID VOTES. VOTES. VALID

FORCEABLE RESULTS.

SHOULD ANNULLED. BE

BY VALID MAJORITY VALID BY VOTES.

THEREFORE, THOSE RESULTS THOSE THEREFORE, RESULTS

AND NON-COLLATION OF THE THE OF NON-COLLATION AND

-CONTRARY TO REGULATION 39, 39, TO -CONTRARY REGULATION

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

ED, UNSTAMPED AND UNSIGNED; UNSIGNED; AND UNSTAMPED ED,

-PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HE HE THAT -PETITIONER CONTENDS

-OKECHUKWU WAS NOT ELECTED NOT -OKECHUKWUWAS

-THE ELECTION WAS LACED WITH WITH LACED ELECTION-THE WAS

COLLATED RESULTS WERE UNDAT RESULTS COLLATED

-INVALID, UNCERTAIN AND UNENAND UNCERTAIN -INVALID,

-IRREGULARITIES, MANIPULATIONS -IRREGULARITIES, MANIPULATIONS

CORRUPT PRACTICESCORRUPT IRREGUAND

SCORING THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF HIGHESTTHE NUMBER OF SCORING

SUB 7 OF THE INEC GUIDELINES, THE THE GUIDELINES, INEC THE OF 7 SUB

SHOULD BE DECLARED WINNER FOR WINNER FOR SHOULD DECLARED BE

PDP

PARTY

2 ORS 2

JA & 2 ORS 2 & JA

HON. TOBY TOBY HON.

NAME OF NAME OF

OKE & 2ORS & OKE

HON. DENIS DENIS HON.

HON. PATRICK PATRICK HON.

INWA & 2ORS & INWA

HON. MARTINS MARTINS HON.

OKECHUKWU &

AMADI OGUER AMADI

ASADU OZIOKO

RESPONDENT

APC

PARTY

APC

ANR

&ANR

ENGR. IKE IKE ENGR.

NAME OF NAME OF

ILO OBIORA OBIORA ILO

CHUKWUMA

UGWUEGEDE UGWUEGEDE

JONATHAN & & JONATHAN

VINMARTINS /

PETITIONER

MR. JOE MMA JOE MR.

BARR. ANIKEZIE ANIKEZIE BARR.

NEWTON ANR &

MEL ONYEMACHI ONYEMACHI MEL

EPT/EN/

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/04/2019

HR/06/2019

HR/07/2019

HR/08/2019

ENUGU

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 83 -

REASON(S)

THE PETITIONERSTHE

PETITION WITHDRAWN

ACCORDING DISMISSED. ACCORDING

FAILED TO ESTABLISH CASE ESTABLISH TO FAILED

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

TRIBUNAL

ESTABLISH THE ALLEGEDTHE IRREGU ESTABLISH

LARITIES IN THE CONDUCT OF THE THE CONDUCTTHE OF LARITIES IN

ELECTION. THE PETITION FAILS AND IT IS IS IT AND PETITIONTHE ELECTION. FAILS

DENT

PETITION

DISMISSED DISMISSED

DISMISSED

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

THE RESPONTHE

WITH 400000 TO

VOTES CAST VOTES

AS AMENDED. AS

VIOLENCE AND

INCONCLUSIVE.

PROVISIONS THEOF

ELECTORAL ACT 2010

MAJORITY LAWFUL OF

NOT DULY ELECTED BY DULY NOT

MAJORITY LAWFUL OF

NOT DULY ELECTED BY DULY NOT

MAKING THE THE MAKING ELECTION

ACT 2010 AS AMENDED. AS ACT2010

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORALTHE PROVISIONS OF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 AS AS ELECTORALTHE ACT2010 OF

OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST. INVALID INVALID CAST. VOTES LAWFUL OF

NOT DULY ELECTED MAJORITY BY DULY NOT

AMENDED. ELECTION BY AMENDED. MARRED

BALLOT BOX SNATCHING THEREBY SNATCHING BOX BALLOT

COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS

DUE TO CORRUPT PRACTICES CORRUPT &NON TO DUE

PDP

APC

PARTY

MELA

VICTOR

ORY 2 ORS 2 ORY

NAME OF NAME OF

OFOR CHUK HON. MICEH MICEH HON.

JOHN& 2 ORS 2 JOHN&

NNAJI NNOLIM

GIBA/ INEC RECINEC GIBA/

WUEGBO GREG

RESPONDENT

APC

PDP

PARTY

& ANR &

ISAALI

NAME OF NAME OF

AMANDA PAM

PETITIONER

DILI ANTHONY ANTHONY DILI

NELSON & ANRNELSON &

ARUM MADUKA ARUM MADUKA

NWAFOR OKWU NWAFOR

EPT/EN/

HR/2019

EPT/FCT/

HR/02/19

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/09/2019

HR/10/2019

EPT/GM/02/

FCT

ENUGU

GOMBE

STATES

S/N

84 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

CASE CASE

WITHDRAWN

REASON(S)

TION ON THE MATTER. THE TION ON

SOME POLLING UNITS

THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED HER THE

TRIBUNAL

ORDERED FRESH FOR ELECTION IN

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE NOT DID

THAT THE ISSUE WAS PRE-ELECTION WAS ISSUE THE THAT

APPEAL AFTER DECLINING JURISDIC

AND NOT A POST –ELECTION A NOT AND MATTER.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCESUBSTANTIAL TO PROOF THE

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

MISSED

UPHELD

ELECTION

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

PETITION DIS

OF PETITIONEROF

RULED IN FAVOR FAVOR RULED IN

ACT

AL ACT

PRIMARIES

THE ELECTIONTHE

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

ONLY EIGHT THE ONLY MONTHS TO

THE RESPONDENT NOT FIT TO TO FIT RESPONDENTTHE NOT

GROUND THAT HE JOINED APC JOINED HE APC THAT GROUND

CONTEST THE THE CONTEST ELECTION, THE ON

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

CHALLENGING THE OUTCOME OF OF OUTCOME THE CHALLENGING

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

NON- COMPLIANCE TO ELECTORAL TO NON- COMPLIANCE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

APC

PARTY

KUMO

FALEKE

ABIODUN ABIODUN

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC & ORS & INEC

HON JAMES JAMES HON

JEED & 1 OR 1 & JEED

USMAN BELLO USMAN

ADEKO ADESEADEKO

RESPONDENT

TAIWO MUSIBAU TAIWO

GUN ABDULMAGUN

HON. KOLAWOLE KOLAWOLE HON.

PDP

PARTY

BOSE

ANOR

AHMED

AISHATU

OKUNOLA

OLAKUNLE OLAKUNLE

NAME OF NAME OF

DR. JOSEPH JOSEPH DR.

HON. MUTIU MUTIU HON.

MOHAMMED

PETITIONER HON RITA ORJI RITA HON

HON. HARRISONHON.

HARUNA KIGBU & HARUNA KIGBU &

HR/2019

EPT/LAG/

SUIT SUIT NO

REP/6/2019

EPT/GM/03/

REP/15/2019

REP/07/2019

REP/01/2019

EPT/NSHA/NS/

EPT/OG/NASS/

LAGOS OGUN

LAGOS

GOMBE

STATES

NASARAWA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 85 -

WITHDRAWN

REASON(S)

15THMARCH 2019.

TRIBUNAL

THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL DIS HONOURABLETHE

MISSED THE PETITION OF THE PETITHE PETITIONTHE OF MISSED

AS CONTAINED IN THEIR PETITION OF IN CONTAINED AS

TIONERS THEY THE ON GROUND THAT

CASES OF ELECTORALCASES OF IRREGULARITIES

WERE UNABLE TO PROVE THE ALLEGED ALLEGED THE PROVE TO WERE UNABLE

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

MISSED

UPON THE UPON THE

DECISION

BY THE THE BY PETI

STRUCK OUT.

PETITION DIS THE TIONERS,

PETITION DIS

THE PETITIONTHE

PETITION DIS

PETITION WAS PETITION WAS

WITHDRAWN OF OF WITHDRAWN

- -

ANCE

AL ACT

LARITIES AND LARITIES AND

UNDUE RETURN NON-COMPLI &

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

- ELECTION WAS MED BY IRREGU BY MED ELECTION- WAS

AL ACTAL PRACTICES CORRUPT AND

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

-NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

PDP

APC

PARTY

INEC

/ INEC /

& 3 ORS.

OJUGBECE OJUGBECE

NAME OF NAME OF

OSUNSANYA OSUNSANYA

HON. AKINFO HON.

JIMOH & 2 ORS 2 JIMOH &

LARIN MAYOWA LARIN MAYOWA

RESPONDENT

KOLAPO KOREDE KOLAPO KOREDE

KOLADE KOLADE AKINJO/

APC

PDP

PARTY

SHOTE

FEMIWA

NAME OF NAME OF

PETITIONER

ABAYOMI AKIN ABAYOMI

HON. SUNMONU SUNMONU HON.

MR. TAIWO KABIR TAIWO MR.

DONALD OJOGO

MOSURU & MOSURUANOR &

EPT/NAS/

SUIT SUIT NO EPT/NAS/

REP/02/2019

REP/05/2019

OND/01/2019

OND/02/2019

EPT/OG/NASS/

OGUN

ONDO

STATES

S/N

86 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) MATTERS.

MATTERS.

CANCELLED.

REASON(S)

TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN THE WINNER THE AND

ISSUES RAISED PRE-ELECTION ARE

ISSUES RAISED PRE-ELECTION ARE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY ANOTHER TO ALLEGIANCE OF OATH

SECOND RUNNER UP IS NOT UP TO TO UP NOT RUNNER IS UP SECOND

OVER VOTING HAS BEEN PROVED IN BEEN PROVEDHAS VOTING IN OVER

PART THE OF SECTIONPART DEALS WITH TAKING THAT

CERTAIN UNITS AND THE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE THE AND UNITS CERTAIN THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS VOTERS NUMBERTHE REGISTERED OF

28 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION PARTICULARLY THE THE CONSTITUTION PARTICULARLY 1999 THE OF 28

IN AREAS WHERE ELECTION AREAS IN BEEN HAS

OF THE WORD ‘’OR ‘’ IN THE SECTIONTHE DISJUNCTIVE IS IN ‘’ ‘’OR WORD THE OF

THE ENTIRE SECTION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO SECTION SUBJECTTO NOT ENTIRETHE SECTIONWAS

THE 1999 CONSTITUTION CONCLUDED THAT THE USE USE THE THAT CONSTITUTION CONCLUDED 1999 THE

THE TRIBUNAL INTERPRETING IN OF THE SECTION66(1)(A)

AND NOT CONJUNCTIVE AND THEREFORE HELD THAT THAT THEREFORE CONJUNCTIVE HELD NOT AND AND

ELECTED; DERED

DENTS

THE ELECTIONTHE

INITIAL RESULT INITIAL RESULT

RERUN OR

DISMISSED

IS UPHELD, AND AND UPHELD, IS DECISION

THE CANDIDATE CANDIDATE THE

N20,000 WAS

AWARDED IN IN AWARDED N20,000 WAS

AWARDED IN IN AWARDED

OF THE THE OF ELECTION.

DECLARED WINNER DECLARED WINNER

QUASHED AND ANAND QUASHED

TO HAVE BEEN DULY BEEN DULY HAVE TO

RETURNED FOUND IS

ELECTION NULLIFIED, ELECTION NULLIFIED,

OTHER CANDIDATE IS IS CANDIDATE OTHER

FAVOR OF EACH EACH OF FAVOR

OF THE THE OF RESPON

ACT;

THE BALLOT PAPER BALLOT THE

WITH WITH ELECTORAL ACT

DENT TO CONTEST ELECTION. CONTEST TO DENT

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NON QUALIFICATION OF RESPON OF QUALIFICATION NON

OMISSION OF HIS PARTY LOGO ON ON LOGO OMISSION PARTY HIS OF

NO COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTORAL COMPLIANCE NO

OVER- VOTING/ OVER- VOTING/ NON-COMPLIANCE

OMISSION OF HIS PARTY LOGO ON ON LOGO OMISSION PARTY HIS OF

PDP

APC

PDP

PARTY

ORS/

SALAM

NAME OF NAME OF

OLAJIDE A. OLAJIDE A.

STANLEY & 4 4 & STANLEY

GBOLUGA/ INEC GBOLUGA/

HON. BAMIDELE BAMIDELE HON.

IKENGBOJE DELE IKENGBOJE DELE

RESPONDENT

OLAJIDE OLATU

BOSUN & 4 /ORS 4 BOSUN &

APC

APC PPC PPP

PARTY

BELLO

SHITU A. SHITU A.

AKINTOYE

NAME OF NAME OF

ADEBOYE O. O. ADEBOYE

ISAAC & OR/ & ISAAC

HON. ALBERT ALBERT HON.

FOWEWE& OR

PETITIONER

HON. ADEJARE HON.

EPT/OY/

EPT/NAS/

OSS/EPT/

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/2/2019

HR/01/2019

HR/002/2019

OND/03/2019

OYO

OSUN

ONDO

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 87 -

PETITION

MATTERS.

REASON(S)

THE ELECTIONTHE

THE ELECTION.THE

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

THE PETITIONTHE MERIT. LACKED

TRIBUNAL

ISSUES RAISED PRE-ELECTION ARE

TO HAVE AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF OF AFFECTED OUTCOME THE HAVE TO

MALPRACTICES ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL MALPRACTICES SUBSTANTIAL NOT ARE

TO HAVE AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF OF AFFECTED OUTCOME THE HAVE TO

FAILURE TO TENDER TO NECESSARY DOCU FAILURE

MENTS MENTS AND WITNESS TO DEFEND THEIR

ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED SUBSTANTIATED NOT ARE ALLEGATIONS

DENTS

AWARDED AWARDED

DISMISSED

DISMISSED DISMISSED.

DISMISSED

PETITIONER

DECISION PETITIONER

AGAINST THE THE AGAINST

UPHELD THE UPHELD THE

N20,000 WAS

AWARDED IN IN AWARDED

AGAINST THE THE AGAINST

N150,000 WAS

N150,000 WAS RESPONDENT

FAVOR OF EACH EACH OF FAVOR

VICTORY THE OF

OF THE THE OF RESPON

VOTES.

THE BALLOT PAPER BALLOT THE

ELECTORAL MALPRACTICES

- ELECTORAL- MALPRACTICES

- - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

PROVISION ELECTORAL OF ACT

- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE WITH THE TO COMPLY - FAILURE

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF VALID VALID REQUIREDTHE NUMBER OF

OMISSION OF HIS PARTY LOGO ON ON LOGO OMISSION PARTY HIS OF

ELECTORAL ACT 2010 AS AMENDED AS ELECTORAL ACT2010

- THE RESPONDENT DID NOT WIN BY BY WIN RESPONDENTTHE NOT DID -

APC

APC.

PDP

PARTY

2 ORS 2

& 4 ORS

AKANDE AKANDE

TOLULOPE TOLULOPE

NAME OF NAME OF

AKINTOLA O. O. AKINTOLA

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

A. AKINREMI & AKINREMI & A.

SADIPE& 2 ORS 2 SADIPE& PRINCE OLAIDE PRINCE OLAIDE

GEORGE & 2 ORS 2 GEORGE &

RESPONDENT PELLER SHINA A.

PDP

PDP PPC

APC

PARTY

& OR

& OR.

NAME OF NAME OF

FIJABI & ORFIJABI &

M. OLAWALE OLAWALE M.

K. OMOTOSHO OMOTOSHO K.

PETITIONER ADELANI & ADELANIOR &

KUNLE YUSUFF KUNLE YUSUFF

DURODOLA M. DURODOLA M.

HON. ADEMOLA ADEMOLA HON.

HON. SAHEED A. SAHEED A. HON.

MOGBONJUBOLA

EPT/OY/

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/3/2019

HR/4/2019

HR/5/2019

HR/6/2019

HR/8/2019

OYO

STATES

S/N

88 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

REASON(S)

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

LACKING IN MERIT. IN LACKING

AL MALPRACTICESAL

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

THE ELECTION WAS INDUCED. ELECTIONTHE WAS

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE. HIS TO EVIDENCE

TRIBUNAL

NOT CONVINCE THE TRIBUNAL THAT NOT TRIBUNAL THE CONVINCE THAT FAILURE TO CALL CREDIBLE WITNESS CALL CREDIBLE TO FAILURE

NO SUBSTANTIAL PROOF ELECTOR OF SUBSTANTIAL NO

LACKED MERIT. THE PETITIONERTHE COULD MERIT. LACKED

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

DISMISSED

ARE TO PAY ARE TO PAY

DISMISSED

DECISION

THE SUM OF OF SUM THE

PETITIONERS

EACH EACH THE OF

RESPONDENT N150,000 FOR

RETURNED.

TORAL ACTTORAL

ADULTERY ON MARCH 1986; MARCH ON ADULTERY

AL ACT 2010 AS AMENDED AS ACTAL 2010

ELECTORAL MALPRACTICES

-ELECTORAL MALPRACTICES

- CANCELLATION OF RESULTS OF CANCELLATION -

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

- NONCOMPLIANCE OF THE ELECTHE NONCOMPLIANCE - OF

FOR ELECTIONFOR BEEN CONVICTED FOR HAVING

- NONCOMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTOR NONCOMPLIANCE-

RESPONDENT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO CONTEST CONTEST TO QUALIFIED NOT WAS RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT PERSON UNSOUND OF A IS MIND;

NOT SCORE LAWFUL VOTES CAST TO HAVE BEEN BEEN HAVE TO CAST VOTES LAWFUL SCORE NOT

RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY ELECTED DID AND DULY NOT WAS RESPONDENT

PDP

APC

PARTY

WO& 2 ORS

NAME OF NAME OF

REMI & ORS ORS & REMI

AKINTOLA O. O. AKINTOLA

HON.TAI A. O.

TOLULOPE T. A. T. TOLULOPE

SADIPE & 4 ORS 4 SADIPE &

IBRAHIM UMAR IBRAHIM UMAR

- OLAJIDE- AKIN

GEORGE & 4 ORS 4 GEORGE &

RESPONDENT

POTISKUM /INEC POTISKUM

APC PPC

PPC

PDP

PARTY

& OR

& ANR &

GARUBA

PROF. J. A. J. PROF.

NAME OF NAME OF

HON.SABO HON.SABO

OLOWOFELA

AKINSOLA N. AKINSOLA N.

PETITIONER

OLAWALE & OR & OLAWALE

RAHEEM TAIWO RAHEEM TAIWO

YUSUFF A. MUTIU MUTIU YUSUFF A.

EPT/OY/

EPT/OY/ YP/EPT/

EPT/OY/

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/10/2019

HR/13/2019

HR/14/2019

HR/15/2019

HR/01/2019

OYO

YOBE

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 89 MERIT.

REASON(S)

THE PETITIONTHE LACKS

TRIBUNAL

GENERAL.

DECISION

ARE RESOLVED ARE

WHICH HE FAILED TO. WHICHFAILED HE

DEPENDENT ON ISSUE DEPENDENT ISSUE ON

AGAINST THE THE AGAINST 1ST PETI

ISSUE NO1 IS RESOLVED RESOLVED IS ISSUE NO1

THE 1ST PETITIONER 1ST THE BY

THAT THE THE 2NDPETITION THAT

OR NOMINATED THE 1ST THE OR 1ST NOMINATED

1, ISSUE 2 AND 3 COULD COULD 3 AND 2 ISSUE 1, ER, THE GREEN PARTY OF OF GREENTHE PARTY ER, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT, THE THE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT,

THAT THE EXCLUSION OF OF EXCLUSION THE THAT ONUS LIE ON THE 1ST PE 1ST THE ON ONUS LIE

ONLY BE GRANTED IT THE THE GRANTED BE IT ONLY

PETITIONER THE FOR 2019 TRIBUNAL IS OF THE VIEW VIEW THE TRIBUNAL OF IS

ELECTION AND SINCE THE ELECTIONTHE SINCEAND

GRANTED. ISSUES 2AND 3 3 ISSUES 2AND GRANTED. TO PROVE ISSUE NO1. THE THE PROVE ISSUE NO1. TO TIONER ON THE GROUNDS GROUNDS THE TIONER ON

1ST PETITIONER WAS ABLE ABLE WAS PETITIONER1ST

TITIONER TO HAVE PROVED HAVE TO TITIONER UNAND NOMINATION HIS

THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE BE TRIBUNAL CANNOT THE

INEC IN THE 2019 GENERAL GENERAL 2019 THE IN INEC

NIGERIA NEVER SPONSORED

PRAYERS HE SOUGHT FROM SOUGHT HE FROM PRAYERS

ISSUE 2 AND 3 WERE HIGHLY WERE HIGHLY 3 AND ISSUE 2

LAWFUL EXCLUSION BY INEC INEC BY EXCLUSION LAWFUL

ELECTION WAS PROPER AND PROPER AND ELECTIONWAS

RIA 1999 (AS AMENDED). AMENDED). (AS 1999 RIA

CONDUCT THE ELECTION.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE

GREEN PARTY OF NIGERIA (GPN) NIGERIA OF (GPN) GREEN PARTY

THAT THE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF SUPPORT IN OF FACTS THE THAT

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

ON THE BALLOT PAPERS USED TO TO USED PAPERS BALLOT THE ON

THE CONDUCT OF 2019 GENERAL GENERAL CONDUCTTHE 2019 OF

GUIDELINE AND REGULATION FOR FOR GUIDELINE REGULATION AND

THE PETITIONER GROUNDS OF THE PETITIONERTHE THE GROUNDS OF

ELECTION AND THE CONSTITUTION ELECTION CONSTITUTION THE AND

THE LOGO OF THE 2ND PETITIONER, 2ND THE OF LOGO THE

OF THE FEDERALTHE REPUBLIC NIGE OF OF ELECTORAL ACT 2010(AS AMENDED) AMENDED) ELECTORAL ACT2010(AS

PETITION IS THE NON-INCLUSION OF OF NON-INCLUSION THE PETITION IS

APC

PARTY

INEC

NAME OF NAME OF

HON. ZAKARI HON.

YAU GALADIMA/ YAU

RESPONDENT

GPN

PARTY

AMINU

NAME OF NAME OF

ISA SULEIMAN SULEIMAN ISA

PETITIONER

YP/EPT/

SUIT SUIT NO

HR/02/2019

YOBE

STATES

S/N

90 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) PETITIONER

REASON(S)

THAT THE PETITIONTHE MERIT LACK THAT

WITHDRAWN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE THE OF INSTANCE THE AT WITHDRAWN

TRIBUNAL

DANT.

TIONER

DECISION

MISSED THE CASE

THE TRIBUNALTHE DIS

WITHDRAWN AT THE THE WITHDRAWN AT

AGAINST THE THE AGAINST DEFEN

INSTANCE OF THE PETITHE OF INSTANCE

THE PETITIONERTHE

-MASSIVE -MASSIVE OVER VOTING

IRREGULARITIES VIOLENCE AND

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-CARD READERS WERE NOT USED WERE NOT -CARD READERS

WITHDRAWN AT THE INSTANCE OF OF INSTANCE THE AT WITHDRAWN

AND NON- USAGE OF CARD READER OF NON- AND USAGE

118 OF 420 PETITIONS 420 OF 118

STATE CONSTITUENCY STATE

5 ORS 5

DENT

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

ABDULLAHI ABDULLAHI

LAHI UMAR UMAR LAHI

MUTAWALLI MUTAWALLI

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED

HON. ABDUL HON.

YAWA & 2 ORS YAWA UMAR & 2 ORS 2 & UMAR

KABIRU MIJIN

YAPAK & 2 ORS 2 & YAPAK

ALHAJI &2 ALHAJIORS &2

JAPHET KEFAS & & JAPHET KEFAS

LIST OF PETITIONS ARISING FROM 2019 GENERAL ELECTION PETITIONS OF LIST 2019 ARISING FROM

1 OR

& 1 OR

NAME OF NAME OF

HON.SALIHU HON.SALIHU

MUSTAPHA & MUSTAPHA

ADAMU BABA BABA ADAMU

RUFAI UMAR & & UMAR RUFAI

PETITIONER

ABUBAKAR AB

KEFAS CALVIN & & CALVIN KEFAS DULLAHI JIBBO DULLAHI JIBBO

A.KABILO& 1 OR 1 A.KABILO&

EPT/AD/

SUIT SUIT NO

SHA/01/2019

SHA/02/2019

SHA/03/2019

SHA/04/2019

SHA/05/2019

STATES

ADAMAWA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 91 CASE

VOTING

REASON(S)

THE DEFENDANT PROVEDTHE CASE HIS

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONER COULD NOT PROVE HIS PROVE PETITIONERTHE HIS NOT COULD

THE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROOF OVER NOT PLAINTIFFTHE COULD

MISSED

DECISION

DISQUALIFIED

TO BE COMPETENT BE TO

THE CASE WAS DIS WAS CASE THE

TO BE COMPETENT BE TO

THE CASE WAS DIS WAS CASE THE

THE PETITIONER WAS THE PETITIONER WAS

THE PETITION WAS SAID SAID WAS PETITIONTHE

ELECTION

EDUCATION REQUIREMENT EDUCATION

THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT NOT WAS RESPONDENTTHE

NON-USAGE CARD READER OF

OVER VOTING, OVER VOTING, IRREGULARITIES,

WITH ELECTORAL ACT, LACK OF OF LACK WITH ELECTORAL ACT,

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

QUALIFIED TO CONTEST ELECTION CONTEST TO QUALIFIED

OVER VOTING, NON- COMPLIANCE NON- COMPLIANCE VOTING, OVER BECAUSE HE WAS A CIVIL SERVANT A WAS HE BECAUSE

OVER VOTING, NON- COMPLIANCE NON- COMPLIANCE VOTING, OVER

TORAL ACT AND SUPPLEMENTARY ACTTORAL SUPPLEMENTARY AND

INTIMIDATION AND VIOLENCE AND VIOLENCE AND AND INTIMIDATION

NON- COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELECTHE WITH NON- COMPLIANCE

ORS

2 ORS 2

DENT

& 2 ORS

IBRAHIM IBRAHIM

ALHASAN ALHASAN

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

BAUNA & 2 & BAUNA

MYANDASA MYANDASA

BORORO & 2 BORORO 2 &

UMAR MUSA MUSA UMAR

MUSA& 3 ORS 3 MUSA&

HAMMANJO & & HAMMANJO

SHUAIBU MUAS MUAS SHUAIBU

1 OR

&1 OR

& 1 OR

YA & 1 ORYA

NAME OF NAME OF

HON.YAKUBU HON.YAKUBU

JIBRIL USMAN JIBRIL USMAN

YALWA & 1 OR YALWA

PETITIONER

MUSA DIRBISHI MUSA DIRBISHI

PETER DA’APE & & PETER DA’APE

VARATI NZONTI NZONTI VARATI

SULEIMAN YAHA SULEIMAN

EPT/AD/

SUIT SUIT NO

SHA/06/2019

SHA/07/2019

SHA/08/2019

SHA/09/2019

SHA/10/2019

STATES

ADAMAWA

S/N

92 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) HIS CASEHIS

PETITION.

REASON(S)

PRE-ELECTION MATTER.

THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THEIR THEIR IN MADE ALLEGATIONS THE

THE THE PETITIONERS WITHDREW THEIR

THE FIRST PETITIONER WAS ISSUED ISSUED FIRSTWAS PETITIONERTHE THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

THE PETITIONER COULD NOT PROVE PROVE PETITIONERTHE NOT COULD

WITH CERTIFICATE OF RETURN OF AN BY WITH CERTIFICATE

ORDER OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN A ORDERFEDERAL OF A HIGH COURT IN

TRIBUNAL

DISMISSED

DECISION

DISQUALIFIED

THE PETITIONER WAS THE PETITIONER WAS

ASSEMBLY.

ELECTION.

OF THE SAID FORM EC 8E. FORMSAID THE EC OF

VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT VOTES

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

THE ELECTIONTHE RETURNEDAND OF

ACT AND SUPPLEMENTARY ELECTIONACT SUPPLEMENTARY AND

THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE THIRD THIRD THE FIRST RESPONDENTTHE BY

WERE NOT DULY ELECTED BY THE MA THE ELECTED BY DULY WERE NOT

A MEMBER OF THE BAUCHI STATE HOUSE OF HOUSE OF STATE BAUCHI THE MEMBER A OF

JORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST AT THE THE CAST AT VOTES JORITY LAWFUL OF ELECTED BY THE MAJORITY OF LAWFUL MAJORITYTHE ELECTED BY LAWFUL OF

THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS FIRST SECOND AND THE

THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE

RESPONDENT IS INVALID BY REASON OF REASON BY OF RESPONDENT INVALID IS

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISION

BUT UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED FROM THE THE FROM EXCLUDED UNLAWFULLY BUT

QUALIFIED TO CONTEST OR TO BE ELECTED BE TO AS OR CONTEST TO QUALIFIED DENT AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION WAS NOT NOT ELECTIONTHE WAS OF TIME THE DENT AT

ELECTION HAD NO CANDIDATE FOR THE CON THE FOR ELECTION CANDIDATE NO HAD

NON- COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELECTORALTHE WITH NON- COMPLIANCE

THE SECOND RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF THE THE OF TIME THE RESPONDENT SECOND THE AT THE PETITIONER STATE THAT THE FIRST RESPONTHE THAT PETITIONERTHE STATE

THE PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY NOMINATED NOMINATED THE VALIDLY PETITIONER WAS

TEST OF THE ELECTION AT SADE CONSTITUENCY. ELECTIONTHE AT OF TEST

APC

INEC

DENT

JADORI

ISA ABDUISA

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

ALI DAN IYA DAN ALI

BELLO SARKI SARKI BELLO

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

HON. SA’IDU SA’IDU HON.

MAD KAWULE MAD DANLAMI AH DANLAMI

APC

PDP

1 OR

APC

PDP

RUFAI

SADE

NAME OF NAME OF

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED

HAMMA YAYA

IBRAHIM JIBO

ABDULHAMID ABDULHAMID

PETITIONER

ATIKU HAYATY & & HAYATY ATIKU

HON. SABO BAKO SABO BAKO HON.

EPT/BA/

EPT/AD/

EPT/BA/

SUIT SUIT NO

HA/15/2019

HA/16/2019

HA/17/2019

HA/19/2019

SHA/10/2019

BAUCHI

STATES

ADAMAWA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 93 -

REASON(S)

THEIR PETITION.

THEIR ABSENCE.

THEIR PETITION.

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

NONE OF THE PETITIONERSTHE NEITHER NONE OF

AND NO REASON WAS ADVANCED FOR FOR ADVANCED WAS REASON NO AND

TRIBUNAL

BUNAL ON THE DAY FIXED FOR HEARING FIXEDHEARING FOR DAY THE BUNAL ON

THEIR COUNSEL APPEAR BEFORE THE TRI THE APPEAR THEIRBEFORE COUNSEL

DISMISSED

DECISION

UENCY.

2010(AS AMENDED). 2010(AS

CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT

ACT, 2010. (AS AMENDED). (AS 2010. ACT,

THAT THE NAME OF THE FIRST FIRST THE OF NAME THE THAT

VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT VOTES THE PETITIONERS STATES THAT THAT PETITIONERSTHE STATES

THE ELECTION WAS INVALID BY BY INVALID ELECTIONTHE WAS

IN THE INEC FINAL LIST OF STATE STATE FINALINEC OF LIST THE IN

THE DECLARATION OF THE FIRST FIRST THE OF DECLARATION THE

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S) MAJORITYTHE POLL LAWFUL OF

AND/OR AND/OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH

REASON OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASON CORRUPT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DID NOT FIRST RESPONDENTTHE NOT DID

THE FIRST RESPONDENT DID NOT FIRST RESPONDENTTHE NOT DID

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY CANDIDATE CANDIDATE HOUSEASSEMBLY OF RESPONDENT AS THE WINNER OF WINNER OF THE RESPONDENT AS

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THAT PETITIONERTHE CONTENDS

FOR MADARA/CHINADE CONSTIT MADARA/CHINADE FOR

REASON OF CORRUPT PRACTICES,REASON CORRUPT OF

IRREGULARITIES FUNDAMENAND

POLL MAJORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES VOTES POLL MAJORITY LAWFUL OF

RESPONDENT ALI DAN IYA WAS NOT NOT WAS IYA RESPONDENT DAN ALI

PROVISION OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, ELECTORALTHE PROVISION ACT, OF

THE SAID ELECTION WAS INVALID BY BY INVALID ELECTIONSAID THE WAS

TAL INFRACTION OF THE ELECTORALTHE INFRACTION OF TAL

INEC

BAKO

DENT

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

ALI DAN IYA DAN ALI

ADO WAKILI ADO

HON. YUSUF YUSUF HON.

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED

HON. KAWUWA KAWUWA HON.

SHEHU DAMINA

USMAN

ADAMU

NAME OF NAME OF

HON. GARA’U GARA’U HON.

PETITIONER

SANUSI BABAYO

BAKAR GANGAR

HON. BILYAMINU BILYAMINU HON.

HON. UMAR ABU UMAR HON.

EPT/BA/

SUIT SUIT NO

HA/20/2019

HA/21/2019

HA/22/2019

HA/23/2019

BAUCHI

STATES

S/N

94 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) REASON(S)

THEIR PETITION.

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THE THE PROVE TO PETITIONERSTHE FAILED

ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THEIR PETITION. IN MADE ALLEGATIONS

DISMISSED

DECISION

POSITION.

OF ELECTORALOF ACT.

ACT 2010. (AS AMENDED) (AS ACT2010.

VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION.THE CAST AT VOTES

TO CONTEST FOR THE AFORESAID AFORESAID THE FOR CONTEST TO

THE ELECTIONTHE RETURNEDAND OF

THE ELECTION WAS INVALID BY THE THE BY INVALID ELECTIONTHE WAS

PROVISION OF THE ELECTORALTHE PROVISION ACT. OF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS NOT QUAL FIRST RESPONDENTTHE NOT IS

THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE THIRD THIRD THE FIRST RESPONDENTTHE BY

IFIED TO CONTEST AS CANDIDATE FOR FOR CANDIDATE AS CONTEST TO IFIED

THE ELECTION AS AT THE TIME HE WAS WAS HE TIME THE ELECTIONTHE AT AS LARATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT FIRST RESPONDENT THE OF LARATION

THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE THIRD THIRD THE FIRST RESPONDENTTHE BY

NONCOMPLIANCE TO ELECTORAL ACT. TO NONCOMPLIANCE

WAS INVALID BY REASON OF CORRUPT REASON CORRUPT BY OF INVALID WAS

FIELDED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT SECOND THE FIELDED BY

THE PETITIONERS STATE THAT THE DECTHE THAT PETITIONERSTHE STATE

AS THE WINNER OF THE SAID ELECTIONSAID THE WINNER OF THE AS

ELECTED BY THE MAJORITY OF LAWFUL MAJORITYTHE ELECTED BY LAWFUL OF

RESPONDENT IS INVALID BY REASON OF REASON BY OF RESPONDENT INVALID IS

THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE

ELECTED BY THE MAJORITY OF LAWFUL MAJORITYTHE ELECTED BY LAWFUL OF

THE FIRST RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS FIRST RESPONDENTTHE

RESPONDENT IS INVALID BY REASON OF REASON BY OF RESPONDENT INVALID IS

REASON OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE THE WITH REASON NONCOMPLIANCE OF

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISION

MENTAL INFRACTION OF THE ELECTORALTHE INFRACTION OF MENTAL

PRACTICES, IRREGULARITIES FUNDAAND

APC

INEC

DENT

DADIYE

BABAYO

RESPON

KAR WUNTI

NAME OF NAME OF

MUSA LUMO

MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED

YUSUF INUWA YUSUF INUWA

GAZALI ABUBAGAZALI

PDP

HIM

APC

HAMMED

HARDAWA

NAME OF NAME OF

YAHAYA MU YAHAYA

PETITIONER

MURTALA IBRA MURTALA

ZAKARIYA BABA BABA ZAKARIYA

ADAMU A. MANU A. ADAMU

EPT /BA/

SUIT SUIT NO

HA/24/2019

HA/26/2019

HA/27/2019

BAUCHI

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 95 -

REASON(S)

JUDGEMENT FAVOUR. HIS IN

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

TO WARRANT THE THE COURT TO WARRANT GIVE TO

THE WEAKNESS OF THE CASE OF THE THE CASE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT A A THAT GROUNDSTHE TRIBUNAL ON

IMOUSLY HELD THAT THE THE PETITIONER HELD THAT IMOUSLY

THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE THE DISMISSED BY WAS PETITIONTHE

RESPONDENT”. AND THE COURTTHE UNAN AND RESPONDENT”.

OF HIS CASE AS PLEADED AND NOT ON ON PLEADED CASE AS HIS NOT AND OF

TRIBUNAL NULLIFY ELEC AN TO SEEKING“PERSON

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

HAS NOT ADDUCED ENOUGH EVIDENCE NOT HAS

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

TION MUST SUCCEED ON THE STRENGTH STRENGTH THE ON TION MUST SUCCEED

DECISION

ELECTION UPHELD

PETITION DISMISSED

2010.

-ETC.

AL ACT

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

THE PETITIONERSTHE ALLEGING ARE

(B) & (C) OF THE ELECTORALTHE ACT OF (C) & (B)

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT RESPONDENTSTHE NOT DID THAT MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

COMPLY WITH SECTION 138 (1) (A) (A) (1) WITH SECTION 138 COMPLY

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

INEC

UCHA

NARD/ DENT

KURANEN

TERKAA D. TERKAA D.

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

TITUS T. UBA TITUS T.

KENEBAI BER

YAGBA VICTOR VICTOR YAGBA

JAMATU

DEMKOR

NAME OF NAME OF

MATTHEW A.

AONDO /APC AONDO

PETITIONER

USOMBO CHRIS USOMBO CHRIS

SAFADOH BOLOYI SAFADOH

LIVNUS GWAZAU

EPT/BY/

EPT/BN/

SUIT SUIT NO

SA/13/2019

SA/14/2019

SA/15/2019

SHA/30/2019

BENUE

BAYELSA

STATES

S/N

96 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) REASON(S)

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

PETITIONER ADDUCE DID ENOUGH

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID TRIBUNAL

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

NULLIFY

DECISION

ELECTION UPHELD

-ETC.

AL ACT

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

BEM

ADAJ

DENT

TORKUMA TORKUMA

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

MNGUTYOB. MNGUTYOB.

TERNAACHIR

CHRISTOPHER CHRISTOPHER

BUNDE YONGO

MICHAEL AUDU

AKI

ENU

CHABO

ADAMU

P.A. ORSHI P.A.

OKLOHO J. J. OKLOHO

NAME OF NAME OF

TERHEMBA T. TERHEMBA T.

PETITIONER

PETER ANKYOV PETER ANKYOV

MUSA O. ALECH MUSA O.

EPT/BN/

SUIT SUIT NO

SA/18/2019

SA/19/2019

SA/20/2019

SA/21/2019

SA/22/2019

BENUE

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 97 REASON(S)

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID TRIBUNAL

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

DECISION

ELECTION UPHELD

-ETC.

AL ACT

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

INEC

AKULE AKULE

DENT

ORTYOM

ENEMARI

AGBIDYE J. J. AGBIDYE

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

WILLIAMS M. WILLIAMS M.

SUGH ABANYI

PETER APTRICK

DEMA

IGBAWASE

NAME OF NAME OF

PETER AGU PETER AGU

PETITIONER

JOHN ALI UDEJOHN ALI

LAS O. AONDO O. LAS

WENDE NICHO

TYOPEV EWARD

JAMES ORNGUA JAMES

EPT/BN/

SUIT SUIT NO

SA/23/2019

SA/24/2019

SA/25/2019

SA/26/2019

SA/27/2019

BENUE

STATES

S/N

98 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) REASON(S)

THERE WAS OVER VOTING. THERE WAS

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID TRIBUNAL

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THAT PROVE TO PETITIONERTHE FAILED

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID

APC.

DECISION

ELECTION UPHELD

THE TRIBUNALTHE DIS

MISSED THE AGAINST

-ETC.

AL ACT

ELECTED

OF THE VOTE THE OF VOTE CASTED

- MASSIVE OVER VOTING OVER MASSIVE -

-CARD READER WAS NOT USED NOT WAS -CARD READER

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

-RESP. DID NOT WIN BY MAJORITY BY WIN NOT DID -RESP.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

- THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS RESPONDENTTHE - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

ORS

AGOM

DENT

RESPON

NAGAIGBE

NAME OF NAME OF

TERUNGWA

(MRS) LYDIA. (MRS) LYDIA.

INYIOFEM & 2 2 INYIOFEM &

PETER ONCHE

ORBAN JACOB ORBAN JACOB

ANTHONY ATTA ANTHONY ATTA

DR. DAVIS ETTA ETTA DAVIS DR.

(APC)

OGBAJI

THERESA

NAME OF NAME OF

PINOT OBO OBO PINOT

HON. IWARA IWARA HON.

INAH INAH ETENG

PETITIONER

IKWUE ODACHI IKWUE ODACHI

JOSEPH TOR JOSEPH TOR AYE

AONDO HUNDUAONDO

BAR. EMMANUEL EMMANUEL BAR.

EPT/BN/

SUIT SUIT NO EPT/CAL/

SA/28/2019

SA/29/2019

SA/30/2019

SA/31/2019

SHA/14/2019

BENUE

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 99 -

MATTER

PETITION

REASON(S)

THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT LACKS LACKS IT THAT TRIBUNAL HELD THE

IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE THE HEAR JURISDICTION LACKS IT TO

THE TRIBUNAL RULED THAT THE THE TRIBUNALTHE PETIRULED THAT

IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE THE HEAR JURISDICTION LACKS IT TO

THE TRIBUNAL RULED THAT THE THE TRIBUNALTHE PETIRULED THAT

ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

A PRE-ELECTION MATTER AND AS SUCH PRE-ELECTIONA SUCH AS AND MATTER

TRIBUNAL

TION BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONER WAS WAS PETITIONERTHE TION BROUGHT BY

A PRE- ELECTION MATTER AND AS SUCH ELECTIONPRE- A SUCH AS AND MATTER

APC.

DECISION

THE TRIBUNALTHE DIS

MISSED THE AGAINST

PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTIONTHE IN PARTICIPATING

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTION.THE IN PARTICIPATING

CANDIDATE WAS LAWFULLY NOMI LAWFULLY WAS CANDIDATE

WAS UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED FROM FROM EXCLUDED UNLAWFULLY WAS BUT POLITICAL HIS BY PARTY NATED

WAS UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED FROM FROM EXCLUDED UNLAWFULLY WAS

DENT

ELVERT ELVERT

HON. DR. DR. HON.

BISONG & BISONG &

AYAMBEM AYAMBEM

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

FRED OKPA FRED OKPA

ANOR (PDP)

HON. HILARY HILARY HON.

SON & 2 ORS 2 & SON

OFEM E. NEL OFEM E.

OSIM & 2 ORS 2 OSIM &

VIRGINIA ITAM VIRGINIA ITAM AKOM & 2 ORS 2 & AKOM

ABANG & 2ORS ABANG &

ANOR

& ANOR &

NAME OF NAME OF

ANOR (APC)

AKONJOM & AKONJOM &

EBAYE NSING NSING EBAYE

NYIAM ESQ. & & NYIAM ESQ.

PAULINA KAKA KAKA PAULINA

PETITIONER

UBUA ANYIA & ANYIA & UBUA

ODUM & ANORODUM &

BARR. SABASTINE SABASTINE BARR.

OKAM CELESTINE OKAM CELESTINE CHARLES IKPI ENI CHARLES ENI IKPI

EPT/CAL/

SUIT SUIT NO EPT/CAL/

SHA/15/2019

SHA/16/2019

SHA/17/2019

SHA/18/2019

SHA/19/2019

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

100 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

MATTER

REASON(S)

THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT LACKS LACKS IT THAT TRIBUNAL HELD THE

ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S

ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S

ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

TRIBUNAL

APC.

DECISION

THE TRIBUNALTHE DIS

MISSED THE AGAINST

PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTIONTHE IN PARTICIPATING

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

WAS UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED FROM FROM EXCLUDED UNLAWFULLY WAS

ORS

2 ORS 2

2ORS

2 ORS 2

DENT

RESPON

ACHIBONG ACHIBONG NAME OF NAME OF

IRONBAR & IRONBAR &

CHRIS NJAH CHRIS NJAH

BETH EDEM

OKPECHI & 2 2 OKPECHI &

HON. ELIZA HON.

MBU OGAR & MBU OGAR &

HON. OGBOR OGBOR HON.

HON. JOSEPH JOSEPH HON.

BASSEY & 2 ORS 2 BASSEY &

FRIDAY GABRIEL GABRIEL FRIDAY

OGBOR UDOP & OGBOR UDOP &

ANOR

& ANOR &

NAME OF NAME OF

OGUA & ORS & OGUA

YONG NSA & & NSA YONG

HON. BASSEY BASSEY HON.

IYANG OGAR & OGAR & IYANG

PETITIONER

EHIE LEONARD LEONARD EHIE

VICTOR EKPEN OKPOR &ANOR

EFIOM ASUQUO EFIOM ASUQUO

HON. NGIM KANU NGIM KANU HON.

EPT/CAL/

SUIT SUIT NO EPT/CAL/

SHA/20/2019

SHA/21/2019

SHA/22/2019

SHA/23/2019

SHA/24/2019

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 101 -

MATTER

REASON(S)

PETITIONER COULD NOT ADDUCE ADDUCE PETITIONER NOT COULD

THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT LACKS LACKS IT THAT TRIBUNAL HELD THE

ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S

ER’S CASE AS IT WAS A PRE- ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION ELECTIONPRE- A WAS IT CASE AS ER’S

JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PETITION

TRIBUNAL

ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE. HIS TO ENOUGH EVIDENCE

APC.

DECISION

THE TRIBUNALTHE DIS

MISSED THE AGAINST PETITION DISMISSED

MISSED THE AGAINST

ELECTION

NOT QUALIFY TO TO THE CONTEST NOT QUALIFY

PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTIONTHE IN PARTICIPATING

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT DULY DULY NOT WAS RESPONDENTTHE

FUL VOTES CAST OF THE ELECTIONTHE CAST OF VOTES FUL

WAS UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED FROM FROM EXCLUDED UNLAWFULLY WAS

WAS UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED FROM FROM EXCLUDED UNLAWFULLY WAS ELECTED BY THE MAJORITYTHE ELECTED BY LAW OF

PDP

2 ORS 2

DENT

HON. EFA EFA HON.

RESPON

HON. EKPO EKPO HON.

NAME OF NAME OF

OGODO OF OGODO OF

EKPE & 2 ORS ORS 2 & EKPE

HON. CHARLES CHARLES HON.

EKPO BASSEY & EKPO BASSEY &

MR. GODWIN E GODWIN E MR.

NYONG ESUA & & ESUA NYONG

AKWAJI & 2 ORS 2 & AKWAJI

UNUNU JOSEPH UNUNU JOSEPH

- -

ANOR

& ANOR &

NAME OF NAME OF

NA OF APC OF NA

NAKANDA & NAKANDA &

PETITIONER

PONG & ANORPONG &

NTUFAM (HON) (HON) NTUFAM

APOSTLE GOD WIN UKPANUK WIN

UDENWA OBIN UDENWA

DR. BASSEY ETIM DR.

PAULICAP EFIOM EFIOM PAULICAP

ESU EFFIONG ESU EFFIONGESU ESU

EPT/EB/

EPT/CAL/

SUIT SUIT NO

SHA/25/2019

SHA/26/2019

SHA/27/2019

SHA/28/2019

HOA/01/2019

EBONYI

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

102 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) GROUNDS

LACKS MERITLACKS

REASON(S)

PETITION MERIT LACKS

PETITIONER COULD NOT PROVE HIS PROVEPETITIONER HIS NOT COULD

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AS THE THE MERIT DISMISSEDAS OF LACK FOR

TRIBUNAL

DECISION

ELECTION UPHELD

TORAL ACTTORAL

HIGHEST VOTE

FIRST PETITIONER SCORED THE THE FIRST PETITIONER SCORED

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

INEC

AUDU

DENT

RESPON

OKODUWA OKODUWA NAME OF NAME OF

MERE OKIYE/

EMMA EWAH EMMA

FRANCIS ABU

OSHIOMHOLE

ABDUL GANIYU ABDUL GANIYU

MR. SEID ALIYU ALIYU SEID MR.

ABUBAKAR

NAME OF NAME OF

AIGBONOGA

BARR. AFEBU AFEBU BARR.

NUS D. IGBAS D. NUS

FRANCIS ABU

PETITIONER

ZUBAIRU DADA ZUBAIRU DADA

MERE OKIYE/INEC

HON. ESEHI MAG HON.

ABU ABDULGANI ABU

EPT/ED/

SUIT SUIT NO

HA/08/2019

HA/09/2019

HA/10/2019

HA/11/2019

HA/12/2019

EDO

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 103 OF PETITIONOF

REASON(S)

HEREBY DISMISSED

WITHDRAWN VIA VIA MOTION WITHDRAWN

DISMISSED MERIT LACKING FOR

THE PETITIONERS’ PETITION FAILS FOR FOR PETITION FAILS PETITIONERS’ THE

TRIBUNAL

DISMISSED VIA MOTION FOR DISMISSAL DISMISSAL FOR MOTION VIA DISMISSED

LACK OF MERIT AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY ACCORDINGLY IS MERIT IT AND OF LACK

PETITION

DISMISSED

DECISION

WITHDRAWN

ELECTION UPHELD

DISMISSED VIA MOTION

- -

TORAL ACTTORAL

HIGHEST VOTE

HIGHEST VOTE HIGHEST VOTE

FIRST PETITIONER SCORED THE THE FIRST PETITIONER SCORED

OF LAWFUL VOTES CAST. INVAL CAST. VOTES LAWFUL OF

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

ID DUE TO CORRUPT PRACTICES. CORRUPT TO DUE ID

NOT DULY ELECTED MAJORITY BY DULY NOT

REASONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICESREASONS CORRUPT OF

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

INEC

DENT

&2ORS

GARDI

HON. OSA HON.

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

ROOBAZEE/

INEC & 2ORS & INEC

TULFUGUTM.

HON. MARCUS MARCUS HON.

ONOBUN/INEC

UGWU HILLARY UGWU HILLARY

& ANR &

WAZIRI

YAHAYA

NA& ANR NA&

CLIFFORD

NAME OF NAME OF

INEGBEDION INEGBEDION

PETITIONER

OSADEBAMWEN OSADEBAMWEN

UGWU SOMADI

MONDAY OKORO MONDAY

CHIJOKE UDEANI CHIJOKE UDEANI

EPT/ED/

EPT/EN/

SA/2019

SUIT SUIT NO

HA/13/2019

HA/14/2019

HA/11/2019

HA/12/2019

EPT/GM/04/

EDO

ENUGU

GOMBE

STATES

S/N

104 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

REASON(S)

DENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO DENCE

EVIDENCE TO PROVE PETITION HIS TO EVIDENCE

PETITIONER ADDUCED ENOUGH EVI

TRIBUNAL

PETITIONER PROVIDE ENOUGH NOT DID

DECISION

RETURN SET ASIDE

PETITION DISMISSED

AL ACT

-IRREGULARITIES

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTOR NON-COMPLIANCE-

DENT

ISMAIL

IBRAHIM

ALI TASIU TASIU ALI

DORAWA

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

SAN AHMEDSAN

KBIRU YUSUF KBIRU YUSUF

NURA ALHAS

LAWAN SHEHU LAWAN YAHATU MUSA MUSA YAHATU

DAHIRU

ZUBAIRU ZUBAIRU

MAMUDS

NAME OF NAME OF YAKUBU H. H. YAKUBU

MALIK JUDA MALIK

HAMZA SULEHAMZA

HALIM ABDUL

RABIU ABDUL

PETITIONER

ABDUL ABDUL

EPT/KN/

SUIT SUIT NO

SHA/13/2019

SHA/14/2019

SHA/15/2019

SHA/16/2019

SHA/18/2019

KANO

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 105 REASON(S)

EVIDENCE TO PROVE PETITION HIS TO EVIDENCE

TRIBUNAL PETITIONER PROVIDE ENOUGH NOT DID

PETITIONER PROVIDE ENOUGH NOT DID

DECISION

PETITION DISMISSED

AL ACT

-IRREGULARITIES

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

DENT

FAMMAR

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

DUL MADARI DUL

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

JIBRIN ISMAIL

LABARAN AB

GARBA SHEHU GARBA SHEHU

KIBIYA

BAKAR

SHEKA

ZAREWA

YAMMUSA

NAME OF NAME OF

PETITIONER

SHUAIBU ABU SHUAIBU

SAGIRU GAMBO GAMBO SAGIRU

MAGAJI DAHIRU MAGAJI DAHIRU

NASIRU ZAKIRAI NASIRU ZAKIRAI

MAIFADA BELLO BELLO MAIFADA

EPT/KN/

SUIT SUIT NO

SHA/19/2019

SHA/21/2019

SHA/22/2019

SHA/26/2019

SHA/32/2019

KANO

STATES

S/N

106 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

- -

REBUTTED.

REASON(S)

PETITION MERIT LACKS

PETITION ENOUGH NO HAS

CONDUCT OF THE ELECTIONTHE CONDUCT OF

CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONERTHE CLAIMED BY

EVIDENCE TO PROOF HIS CASE AS PROOF CASE AS HIS TO EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE TO PROVE PETITION HIS TO EVIDENCE

NAME WAS CONTAINED IN THE ELECTIONTHE IN CONTAINED WAS NAME

THE TRIBUNAL RULED THAT THE THE TRIBUNALTHE PETIRULED THAT THE ANCE TO ELECTORAL ACT THE IN

TION OF SUBSTANTIAL NON-COMPLI SUBSTANTIAL TION OF

ED BY APC. IN ADDITION TO, THE TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL THE TO, ADDITION IN APC. BY ED

DENTS HAVE REJECTED HAVE DENTS HASSAN ELEWU AS

FURTHER FOUND THAT SINCE ALL RESPONSINCE ALL THAT FURTHER FOUND

TIONER FAILED TO PROVE THE ALLEGATHE PROVE TO TIONER FAILED BLE BELIEVE EXISTED THAT SULAIMON SHEU SULAIMON SHEU THAT BELIEVEBLE EXISTED

THAT SULAIMAN SHEU ABDULSALAM IS THE THE SHEU ABDULSALAM SULAIMAN IS THAT

THE CANDIDATE OF APC, THE PRESUMPTION PRESUMPTION THE APC, OF CANDIDATE THE

RESULT DECLARED BY INEC AND A REBUTTA DECLARED A AND INEC BY RESULT

TRIBUNAL PETITIONER PROVIDE ENOUGH NOT DID

ABDULSALAM WAS THE CANDIDATE PRESENT CANDIDATE THE WAS ABDULSALAM

CANDIDATE OF APC HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY BEEN SUCCESSFULLY HAS APC OF CANDIDATE

THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT SULAIMAN SHEU’S SHEU’S SULAIMAN THAT TRIBUNAL FOUND THE

DISMISSED

DECISION

PETITION DISMISSED

ELECTION FRESH A AND

ASSEMBLY MEMBER REP ASSEMBLY

WITHDRAW ANY CERTIFI ANY WITHDRAW NULLIFIED THE ELECTION

ELEWU AS THE HOUSE OF HOUSETHE OF ELEWU AS

COURT ORDERED INEC TO TO COURT ORDERED INEC

RESENTING ILORIN SOUTH SOUTH RESENTING ILORIN

STATE CONSTITUENCY. THE THE CONSTITUENCY. STATE

ISSUED IN RESPECT THE TO

CATE OF RETURN ALREADY RETURN OF ALREADY CATE

THAT PRODUCED S HASSAN PRODUCED HASSAN S THAT

ED ED WITHIN THREE MONTHS.

STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY HOUSEASSEMBLY OF STATE

ELECTION TO BE CONDUCT BE ELECTIONTO

AL ACT

ELECTION.

IRREGULARITIES

CERTIFICATE FORGERY (SSCE) CERTIFICATE

NON- QUALIFICATION OF THE THE OF NON- QUALIFICATION

ELECTION MALPRACTICE AND

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S) FIRST RESPONDENT TO CONTEST CONTEST TO FIRST RESPONDENT

- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WITH ELECTOR NON-COMPLIANCE-

GAMA

DENT

GARBA

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

SULAIMAM SULAIMAM

KUKA/ INECKUKA/

HON. GHALI GHALI HON.

UMAR MUSA MUSA UMAR

HON. AMINU AMINU HON.

MUHAMMED MUHAMMED

HON. AHMED AHMED HON. INEC BUNZA/

SALAM/ INEC SALAM/

SHEU ABDUL

KALGO

BUNZA

AGBOOLA

NAME OF NAME OF

SHEHU ADAM SHEHU ADAM

AHMED GAMA

PETITIONER

KANO IBRAHIM KANO IBRAHIM ABASS AMADU

JIMOH RAHEEM JIMOH RAHEEM

ZAYYANU SHEHU SHEHU ZAYYANU

EPT/KN/ EPT/KB/

EPT/KB/

SUIT SUIT NO

KWST/EPT/

HA/01/2019

SHA/35/2019

SHA/01/2019

SHA/02/2019

EPT/KT/SHA/2019

KEBBI

KEBBI KANO

KWARA

KATSINA

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 107 WITHDRAWN

REASON(S) WITHDRAWN

PETITION MERIT LACKS

DIDN’T GO TO APPEAL TO DIDN’T GO

PETITION MERIT LACKS

COULD NOT PROVE OVER VOTING AND AND VOTING PROVE OVER NOT COULD

TRIBUNAL

DISMISSED

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

ELECTION UPHELD

ELECTION JA HON, OF

TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE

FINED KASIMU #200,000

COB SAMUEL TSEBE AND AND TSEBE SAMUEL COB

OVER VOTING

IRREGULARITIES

ELECTION MALPRACTICE AND

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

BY MAJORITY OF THE VOTE CASTED VOTE MAJORITYBY THE OF VOTING IRREGULARITIES OVERAND

AL ACT. RESPONDENT DID NOT WIN WIN RESPONDENT NOT DID ACT. AL NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

BY MAJORITY OF THE VOTE CASTED VOTE MAJORITYBY THE OF

AL ACT. RESPONDENT DID NOT WIN WIN RESPONDENT NOT DID ACT. AL

DENT

& 2 ORS

HON. ABEL ABEL HON.

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

ALI DOGARA DOGARA ALI

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED MR. MOHAM MR.

YAKUBU BALA YAKUBU

(PDP) & 2 ORS 2 (PDP) &

(APC) & 2 ORS 2 (APC) &

JACOB S. TSEBE TSEBE JACOB S. (APC) MADEFU

DANLADI JATAU JATAU DANLADI ADAMUO MED

ANOR

NAME OF NAME OF

OSU& ANOR OSU&

UMAR KAIKA KAIKA UMAR

MUHAMMED MUHAMMED

HON. KASIMU KASIMU HON.

HON. ALAPHU ALAPHU HON.

BALA UMARU BALA UMARU

(APC) & ANOR(APC) &

(PDP) & ANOR(PDP) &

PETITIONER

MR BASIL OSHEMR

DANLAMI KUJE & & KUJE DANLAMI

KA (PDP) & ANOR & KA (PDP)

SUIT SUIT NO

HA/15/2019

HA/16/2019

HA/17/2019

HA/20/2019

HA/21/2019

EPT/NSHA/NS/

STATES

NASARAWA

S/N

108 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

WITHDRAWN

REASON(S)

PETITION MERIT LACKS

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

PETITION DISMISSED

- -

PLIANCE

TIES & MALPRACTICES & TIES

ELECTION MALPRACTICE AND

IRREGULARITIES (OVER VOTING)

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

UNDUE RETURN COM – NON AND

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR IRREGULARI NON-QUALIFICATION, UNDUE RETURN COM – NON AND

AL ACT. RESPONDENT DID NOT WIN WIN RESPONDENT NOT DID ACT. AL

BY MAJORITY OF THE VOTE CASTED. VOTE MAJORITYBY THE OF

ORS

DENT

& 2 ORS

SULEIMAN SULEIMAN

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

ABDULAZIZ ABDULAZIZ

YUSUF OLA

DANLADI & 2 2 & DANLADI

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

HORU A. (APC) HORU A.

WALE & 2 ORS. 2 & WALE

ABDULLAHI DA

ANOR

NAME OF NAME OF

ABDULLAHI ABDULLAHI

PETITIONER YAHAYA WADA

IDOWU SEGUN IDOWU SEGUN

HON. JOLAOSO JOLAOSO HON.

MOHAMMED &/ MOHAMMED &/

MOHD L (PDP) & & (PDP) MOHD L

OLUJOBI ISREAL OLUJOBI

KAMIR ADEWALE KAMIR ADEWALE

SONOWO& ANOR ANOR. SAMUEL &

EPT/OG/

SUIT SUIT NO

HA/22/2019

HA/23/2019

HASS/06/2019

EPT/NSHA/NS/

HASS/07/2019

EPT/NSHA/NS/

HASS/08/2019

OGUN

STATES

NASARAWA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 109 -

REASON(S)

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

DECISION

PETITION DISMISSED

TICES

2 PVC)

TICES, & NON – COMPLIANCE – NON & TICES,

TICES, & NON – COMPLIANCE & & COMPLIANCE – NON & TICES,

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

UNDUE RETURN & CORRUPT PRACUNDUE RETURN CORRUPT &

NON – QUALIFICATION (POSSESSING (POSSESSING QUALIFICATION – NON

DENT

OYEDEJI

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC & ORS. & INEC

INEC & 2 ORS. 2 & INEC

GANIYU ALANI GANIYU ALANI

ANOR

SALAMI

& ANOR &

NAME OF NAME OF

MR. FATIU F. F. FATIU MR.

AKINDE OLU

HON. IDOWU IDOWU HON.

HON. SOTOYO SOTOYO HON.

MO OWOLABIMO

PETITIONER

OLOWOFUJA & & OLOWOFUJA

HON. OLUWEMI HON.

ISMAIL JOHNSON JOHNSON ISMAIL

WASOGO & ANOR & WASOGO

EPT/OG/

SUIT SUIT NO

HASS/09/2019

HASS/10/2019

HASS/11/2019

HASS/12/2019

HASS/13/2019

OGUN

STATES

S/N

110 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

REASON(S)

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

DECISION

PETITION DISMISSED

ES & NON - COMPLIANCE - NON & ES

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

UNDUE RETURN, PRACTIC CORRUPT

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION WITHIN PDP EXCLUSION UNLAWFUL

UNDUE RETURN, PRACTIC CORRUPT

DENT

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

ABIODUN SYL

INEC & 14 ORS. 14 & INEC

VESTER & ANOR. VESTER &

ANOR

DR. KAS DR.

ADEBAYO

SULAIMON SULAIMON

NAME OF NAME OF

SIM TAOFIK TAOFIK SIM MUKARA M MUKARA M

EYE & ANOR & EYE

OLADIRAN& OLADIRAN&

JAMIU AJAOJAMIU

PETITIONER

FAGBEMI AKIN FAGBEMI

ADEBAYO ADEN ADEBAYO

MR. ODETOGUN ODETOGUN MR.

BODE CHARLES & BODE CHARLES &

EPT/OG/

SUIT SUIT NO

HASS/14/2019

HASS/15/2019

HASS/16/2019

HASS/17/2019

HASS/18/2019

OGUN

STATES

100

101

S/N

102

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 111 -

REASON(S)

TRIBUNAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

DECISION

PETITION DISMISSED

ES & NON - COMPLIANCE - NON & ES

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

UNDUE RETURN, NON-COMPLIANCE

UNDUE RETURN, PRACTIC CORRUPT UNDUE RETURN, NON-COMPLIANCE

UNDUE RETURN, NON-COMPLIANCE

DENT

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC & 2 ORS. 2 & INEC

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

INEC & 14 ORS 14 & INEC

INEC & 10 ORS. 10 & INEC

INEC & 17 ORS 17 & INEC

SANYA

SANUSI

MR EDUN EDUN MR

NAME OF NAME OF

MR. SUNDAY SUNDAY MR.

FOYE ADENIYI ADENIYI FOYE OLUWATOYIN

PETITIONER

TUNDE WASIU TUNDE WASIU

OLALEKAN OYE DR. EMMANUEL EMMANUEL DR.

SOLOMON & 1 OR 1 & SOLOMON

BABABODE& 1 OR 1 BABABODE&

EPT/OG/

SUIT SUIT NO

HASS/19/2019

HASS/20/2019

HASS/21/2019

HASS/22/2019

HASS/23/2019

OGUN

STATES

103

104

105

106

S/N

107

112 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

REASON(S) WITHDRAWN

OF THE FIRST RESPONDENTTHE OF

PROVIDED BY THE ELECTORALTHE PROVIDED ACT. BY

TO PROVE THEIR CASE SUBSTANTIALLY THEIR CASE SUBSTANTIALLY PROVE TO

ULARITIES AND NON-COMPLIANCE AS ULARITIES NON-COMPLIANCEAND AS FOR THE NULLIFICATION OF ELECTION OF NULLIFICATION THE FOR

THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERSTHE PETITIONTHE ON OF

RESPONDENT QUALIFIED TO CONTEST TO RESPONDENT QUALIFIED

TRIBUNAL

THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE THE UNABLE GROUND THAT

THE PETITIONERTHE PROVIDE SUB NOT DID

STANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE STANTIAL

THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED TRIBUNAL DISMISSED HONOURABLETHE

THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE IRREGTO PETITIONERTHE FAILED

DISMISSED

PLEADING.

DECISION

IT WAS DISMISSED WAS IT

ELECTION UPHELD

AND STRUCK OUT – STRUCKAND – OUT

PETITION DISMISSED

IT WAS WITHDRAWN WITHDRAWN WAS IT

PARTY AND EXCHANGE EXCHANGE AND PARTY

- -

AL ACT

ITIES AND AND ITIES

RESPONDENT

. NON QUALIFICATION OF THE THE OF QUALIFICATION NON .

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

UNDUE RETURN, NON-COMPLIANCE

-NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

-NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR ELECTION WAS MED BY IRREGULAR BY MED ELECTIONWAS

-NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTOR

ELECTION WAS MED BY IRREGULAR BY MED ELECTIONWAS

VS.

DENT

GUN/INEC

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

AKINGBASO AKINGBASO

WILLIAMS A. WILLIAMS A.

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

HON. FELEMU FELEMU HON.

- DR MUJIDAT DR -

GUDU OLUSE

FESTUS O./INEC

ADEWALE /INEC ADEWALE

ABIOLA

OLADAPO OLADAPO

ODUMOSU ODUMOSU

NAME OF NAME OF

OLUGBENGA

DEEN VICTOR

OMOTADOWA OMOTADOWA

FALANA TAJU FALANA

SMITH ADEUYI

PETITIONER

HASHIM ABIOYE

EPT/HA/ EPT/OG/

EPT/HA/

OSS/EPT/ SUIT SUIT NO

HA/001/2019

OND/05/2019

OND/06/2019

HASS/24/2019

OND/07/2019

OGUN

ONDO

OSUN

ONDO

STATES

108

109

110

111

S/N

112

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 113 -

LARITIES

CANCELLED.

REASON(S)

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

ELECTORAL MALPRACTICES

SOME POLLING UNIT AND THE DIFTHE SOME POLLING AND UNIT

OVER VOTING HAS BEEN PROVED IN BEEN PROVEDHAS VOTING IN OVER

INABILITY TO ESTABLISH CLAIMS OF CLAIMS OF ESTABLISH INABILITYTO

FERENCE BETWEEN THE WINNER AND FERENCE WINNERBETWEEN AND THE THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS VOTERS NUMBERTHE REGISTERED OF

IN AREAS WHERE ELECTION AREAS IN BEEN HAS

THE SECOND RUNNER UP IS NOT UP TO TO UP NOT RUNNER IS UP SECOND THE

TRIBUNAL

COULD NOT PROVE CLAIMS IRREGU OF NOT COULD

DISMISSED

DECISION

RERUN ORDERED

OVER VOTING –

ELECTORAL MALPRACTICES

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

HON. HON.

DENT

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

HON. ADEWUNHON.

HON. HON.

MOH& OR MOH&

NAME OF NAME OF

NA& OR/APC NA&

EROYALESUN EROYALESUN

PETITIONER

JOHNSON & JOHNSONOR &

AJIBOLA ADESI

HON. AKINTILOYE HON.

USMAN O. BURAI O. USMAN

EPT/OY/

OSS/EPT/

SUIT SUIT NO

HA/002/2019

HA/003/2019

SHA/20/2019

SHA/21/2019

SHA/24/2019

OYO

OSUN

STATES

113

114

115

116 S/N

117

114 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) REASON(S)

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE. HIS TO EVIDENCE

PETITIONER ADDUCE ENOUGH NOT DID TRIBUNAL

DECISION

ELECTION UPHELD

ULARITIES

TORAL ACTTORAL

GROUND PETITIONFOR (S)

ELECTION WAS MARRED BY IRREG BY MARRED ELECTIONWAS

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELEC

DENT

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

HON. BUHARI BUHARI HON.

HUSSAINI (PDP)

NAME OF NAME OF

MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD

HON MALAMI MALAMI HON

GALADANCHI

PETITIONER

EPT/SKT/

HA/22/19

SUIT SUIT NO

SOKOTO

STATES

118

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 115 3.2 ANALYSIS OF PETITION Cross-River, Delta, Imo, Kaduna, Katsina, Kwara, 3.2.1 Grounds Adduced for Petition at the Rivers and Taraba) made “not duly elected to Governorship Election Tribunals contest election” one of the basis for question- Upon analysis of the 26 (twenty-six) states where ing the election. 7 (seven) representing 14.00% governorship election petitions were filed: petitioners (Kebbi, Kwara, Lagos, Niger, Ogun, 21 (twenty-one) representing 42.00% of the Plateau and Zamfara) opined that the returned petitions (Abia,Adama,Akwa-Ibom, Bauchi, candidate did not qualify to contest the March Benue, Cross-River, Delta, Imo, Kaduna, Kano, 9, 2019 elections. 9 (nine) representing 20.00% Katsina, Kebbi, Kwara, Lagos, Nasarawa, Ogun, petitioners (Adamawa, Bauchi, Cross-Rive, Ebo- Oyo, Plateau, Rivers, Sokoto and Taraba) alleged nyi, Imo, Kano, Nasarawa, Ogun and Rivers) al- Non-Compliance and Corrupt Practices and leged that they were unlawfully excluded from over-voting. 12 (twelve) representing 24.00% the election by the Independent National Elec- petitions (Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Bauchi, Benue, toral Commission.

TABLE 3.5: ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR GOVERNORSHIP PETITION

Non-compliance Not duly elected by Not Qualified to Unlawful Exclu- and Corrupt Prac- the majority Contest sion tices ABIA ADAMAWA KEBBI ADAMAWA

ADAMAWA AKWA-IBOM KWARA BAUCHI

AKWA-IBOM BAUCHI LAGOS CROSS RIVER

BAUCHI BENUE NIGER EBONYI

BENUE CROSS RIVER OGUN IMO

CROSS RIVER DELTA PLATEAU KANO

DELTA IMO ZAMFARA NASARAWA

IMO KADUNA OGUN

KADUNA KATSINA RIVERS

KANO KWARA

KATSINA RIVERS

KEBBI TARABA

KWARA

116 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Non-compliance Not duly elected by Not Qualified to Unlawful Exclu- and Corrupt Prac- the majority Contest sion tices LAGOS

NASARAWA

OGUN

OYO

PLATEAU

RIVERS

SOKOTO

TARABA

Table 3.6: Percentage Analysis of Grounds for Governorship Petition

GROUND ANALYSIS 2019

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH 42.00% THE ELECTORAL ACT

NOT DULY ELECTED TO 24.00% CONTEST THE ELECTION

NOT QUALIFIED TO CON- 14.00% TEST

UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION 20.00%

TOTAL 100%

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 117 Figure 3.3: Analysis of Grounds for Governorship Petition

3.2.2 JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNALFOR March 9, 2019 by reason of lack of qualification. GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITIONS The implication of this decision however does Analysis of judgments in the 67 petitions filed not affect the existing status quo of the gover- against the March 9, 2019 governorship elec- norship sit in Zamfara State, the Supreme Court tions showed that 44 petitions representing having invalidated the participation of the All 65.7% were dismissed while 22 petitions rep- Progressives Congress (APC) in the last Gover- resenting 32.8% were struck out for varying norship, National Assembly and State Assem- reasons. One of the petitions was upheld. The bly elections for failing to conduct primaries in petition filed against the victory of Mr. Mukhtar accordance with the party’s Constitution, the Shehu Idris of APC in the March 9, 2019 elections Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution respec- by Mr. Bala Bello Maru of Accord party alleging tively. Following the Supreme Court’s order, that that Mr. Idris did not qualify to stand for election all political parties whose candidates scored the because APC did not conduct primaries and that second highest votes in the elections and the the election was not valid by reasons of corrupt required spread should be declared winners practices and non-adherence to the provisions forthwith; the Independent National Electoral of the Electoral Act. The Tribunal upheld the Commission issued a Certificate of Return to the petition, declaring that the respondent did not current Governor, Mr. Matawalle of the People’s win the Zamfara State Governorship election of Democratic Party on 27th May, 2019.

118 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Table 3.7: Analysis of Judgment of the Governorship EPT

JUDGEMENT PETITIONS (%) PETITIONS (COUNT)

DISMISSED 65.7% 44

STRUCK OUT 32.8% 22

PETITION UPHELD 1.5% 1

100.00% 67

Figure 3.4: Percentage distribution of Judgment of the Tribunal for Governorship Elec- tion Petitions

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 119 3.2.3 Analysis of the reasons adduced for do what he is required to do within a specified the judgments delivered by the Governor- time limit – this will include filing processes out ship Election Tribunal of time and failure to attend pre-hearing confer- 30 petitions representing 44.8% out of the 67 ence. Failure to provide witnesses to give oral ev- cases assessed were dismissed based on the idence in support of the documentary evidence petitioners’ failure to establish their cases. Fail- and give eye-witness account also amounts to ure to establish a case came in various man- lack of diligent prosecution. On the other hand, ners. The petitioners may have failed to adduce 5 (7.5%) petitions were dismissed based on the enough evidence to prove their cases or failed incompetence of the petition. Section 138(1) of to adduce oral evidence in support of the doc- the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) set out the umentary evidence submitted to the Tribunal, grounds upon which a petition may be brought which amounted to dumping the evidence on before an Election Petition Tribunal. Where a pe- the Tribunal without more. Some documenta- titioner based his petition on grounds outside ry evidence (witness statement) submitted in the content of the provision of the laws, such a certain case were in local language and not petition is regarded as incompetent and a clear translated into English. In other cases where waste of the time of the Tribunal. 1 (1.5%) pe- the allegation of non-compliance with the tition was dismissed based on lack of Jurisdic- provisions of the Electoral Act were made, the tion by the Tribunal. The particular case, which Tribunal found that the non-compliance were was a pre-election matter had been heard and not substantial enough to affect the results of determined by a Federal High Court. 21 (31.3%) the election in accordance with the provision were withdrawn by the petitioners for varying of Section 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as reasons, ranging from lack of fund, lack of party amended) as follows: support, ill health of the petitioner; and some An Election shall not be invalidated by reason of others were withdrawn in the best interest of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if the States concerned. 6 (9.0%) petition failed it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that because the petitioners filed pre-hearing notice the election was conducted substantially in accor- out of time. However, 1 petitioner, representing dance with the principles of this Act and that the 1.8% was able to establish that the respondent non-compliance did not affect substantially the was not qualified to participate in the elections; result of the election. though events had overtaken the outcome of 2 petitions representing 3.0% were dismissed this decision. for lack of diligent prosecution. Lack of diligent prosecution arises where the petitioner failed to

120 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Table 3.8: Analysis of Reasons Adduce for Judgment in Governorship EPT Court’s reasons for the petition’s decision reached (2019)

Failure to establish case 44.8% 30

Petitioner was able to 1.5% 1 establish case

Incompetence 7.5% 5

Tribunal Lack Jurisdic- 1.5% 1 tion Case Withdrawn 31.3% 21

Lack of diligent prose- 3.0% 2 cution Petitioner Abandoned 1.5% 1 Petition Filing of Pre-hearing 9.0% 6 notice out of time Total 100.00% 67

Figure 3.5: Percentage distribution of the Court’s reason on the decision reached in Governorship EPT

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 121 3.3 Assessment of Election Petition Tribu- Tribunals showed that the Judges were profes- nals across the Thirty-Six States and the sional, coordinated and competent. They had a Federal Capital Territory of the Federal Re- good handle on the cases before them and con- public of Nigeria trol of the Tribunal throughout the proceedings. 3.3.1 Analysis of the Conduct of the Judges The Judges of the Tribunal could sometimes be Noting that there were no Election Tribunal sit- seen as descending into the arena, interfering tings in Jigawa State in the 2019 election-year, or dictatorial; it was however noted that this only 36 Election Petition Tribunals were moni- conduct is brought on by vexatious and frivo- tored across 35 States and the Federal Capital lous cases; which KDI did not witness during the Territory by Kimpact Development Initiative in period of monitoring. the 2019 election-year. Analysis of 36 Election

Table 3.9: Conduct of Judges Conduct of the 35 STATES AND FCT Judges Professional 33 91.7

Coordinated 3 8.3

Interfering 0 0.0

Dictatorial 0 0.0 Total 36 100.0

Figure 3.6: Percentage distribution of conduct of the judges across the Tribunals in 35 States and FCT in Nigeria, 2019

122 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 3.3.2 Number of Judges and Gender Disag- eled over 29 Governorship Election Tribunals gregation across 29 States of the Federal Republic of Ni- In preparation for the election, and in compli- geria where Governorship Election took place ance with Section 133(3)(a)-(b) of the Elector- in the March 9 General Elections, and 5 Justices al Act, 2010 (as amended) which requires that over 1 (one) Presidential Election Tribunal Pan- Election Tribunals be constituted 14 (fourteen) el. The Governorship panels set up for Jigawa, days before the elections, about 250 Judges of Borno and Yobe were disbanded because the the High Court, Grand Khadis and Chief Mag- Tribunal did not receive any governorship elec- istrates were constituted as Election Tribunals tion petition; the situation left us with 78 (sev- panel. They were inaugurated on 25th January enty-eight) judges across 26 States. The data 2019 by the Chief Judge of Nigeria, Hon. Justice gathered as at 31stDecember2019 across 26 Tanko Muhammed. In accordance with the laws, Governorship Election Tribunals and one Pres- each of the Tribunals set up under the Constitu- idential Election Tribunal revealed 83 (eighty- tion is paneled by 3 (three) judges, with a Judge three) Panel Members. The Gender Disaggrega- of a High Court as the Chairman of the Panel; tion of the 83members of panel revealed that and 5 (five) Justices of the Court of Appeal was 66 of the Judges, representing 79.5% were male empaneled to sit over the Presidential Election and 18, representing 21.7% were female. Tribunal.87 (eighty-seven) Judges were empan-

Figure 3.7: Number of Judges in Governorship and Presidential Election Tribunals

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 123 Table 3.10: Gender Disaggregation of Judges GENDER NO. OF JUDGES IN 26 STATES GOVERNORSHIP TRIBUNAL AND FCT MALE 66 79.5%

FEMALE 17 20.5%

PWD 0 0.0

Total 83 100.0

Figure 3.8: Percentage distribution of Judges disaggregated by gender across the 26 States Governorship Tribunals and the Federal Capital Territory

3.3.3 Number of Secretaries and Gender Electoral Act, 2010; the duties include:

Disaggregation • Receive the election petition38 The Secretaries are gatekeepers of the Tribunals’ • Compare copies of election petition to the secretariats. The interpretation session37 of First original petition submitted before certifying

Schedule to the Electoral Act defines a secretary them as copies. 39 as “the Secretary of an election Tribunal estab- • Cause notice of the presentation of the elec- lished by the Constitution or this Act and shall tion petition to be served on each of the re- include the Registrar of the Court of Appeal or spondents. 40 any officer or Clerk acting for him”. One Secre- tary is appointed to each State’s Tribunal with supporting staff. The duties of the Secretary to 38 Paragraph 3 (1) & (2) Ibid a Tribunal are set out in the First Schedule to the 39 Paragraph 3(3) Ibid

37 Paragraph 1 First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (As amended) 40 Paragraph 7(1)(a) Ibid

124 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) • Post on the Tribunal notice board a certified Analysis of the 36 States Tribunals and the Fed-

copy of the election petition. 37 eral Capital Territory showed 36 (thirty-six) Sec- • Set aside a certified copy for onward trans- retaries. The panel in Jigawa State had been mission to the person or persons required disbanded since there was no petition filed to by law to adjudicate and determine the challenge the outcome of any of the elections

election petition 38 conducted on the 23rd of February 2019 and Other duties assigned to the Secretary of a Tri- 9thMarch, 2019. Gender disaggregation of this bunal are as set out in the Electoral Act. 39 data revealed that 24 of the Secretaries which

37 Paragraph 7(1)(b) Ibid represent 66.70% were male; while 12 of them

38 Paragraph 7(1)(c) Ibid representing 33.30% were female.

39 See generally Paragraphs 3, 7, 11 and 13 of the First Schedule to the Electoral

Act 2010.

Table 3.11: Gender Disaggregation of Tribunal Secretaries 35 STATES AND FCT GENDER NO. OF SEC (COUNT) PERCENTAGE

MALE 24 66.70%

FEMALE 12 33.30%

Total 36 100.0%

Figure 3.9: Percentage distribution of Secretaries disaggregated by gender across the 36 States Tribunals and the Federal Capital Territory

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 125 3.4 Tribunal Assessment consuming was the delivery of judgment. The 3.4.1 Number of Hours Spent at Tribunal- times spent in judgment delivery vary from two The tribunals sit for an average of 10 (ten) to 13 hours to nine hours. Out of the 34 Tribunals an- (thirteen) hours in a day. Once some tribunals alyzed, one of the Tribunals representing 2.9% sit at 8:00am in the morning, they do not rise delivered judgment within 1-2hours. Six of the until between 7:00pm and 9:00pm in the eve- Tribunals representing 17.7% were in session ning with a break of about 1 hour in-between. for 2-4hours for judgment delivery. Sixteen Tri- Kimpact observed that the average number of bunals which is 47.1% took 4-6 hours to deliver hours it took in attending to a case vary from judgment. Eleven of the tribunals representing one Tribunal to another. The one part of the 32.4% delivered judgment within 7-9hours. Election Tribunal proceedings that was time

Table 3.12: Assessment of the Number of Hours Spent at the Tribunal

HOURS PER DAY 35 STATES TRIBUNAL AND FCT

% Count 2-1hrs 2.8% 1 2-4hrs 16.7% 6 4-6hrs 47.2% 17 7-9hrs 33.3% 12 Total 100.0% 36

Figure 3.10: Percentage distribution of the Average Length of period spent during Judgment in 35 States Tribunal and FCT

126 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 3.4.2 Size of Audience in the Court Room sizes. 6 of the Tribunals however averaged 45-54 The size of the audience across 36 Tribunals vary audience size, which is 16.70%. There were 17 between 25 (twenty-five) and 100 (one hun- of the Tribunals that had the average audience dred) in number. Across five Tribunals, the size size of 54-100, that is 47.20%, while8 (22.20%) of of the audience averaged 25-34 (13.90%). None the Tribunals had over 100 capacity size of au- of the Tribunals had between 35-44 audience dience.

Table 3.13: Assessment of the Size of Audience at the Tribunal

AUDIENCE SIZE RANGE STATES TRIBUNAL

34-25 13.90% 5 35-44 0% 0 45-54 16.70% 6 54-100 47.20% 17 >100 22.20% 8 Total 100.0% 36

Figure 3.11: Percentage distribution of the average size of audience across 35 States Tribunal and FCT

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 127 3.4.3 Assessment of Behavior of the Au- Tribunal. The presence of the Press men were dience, the Press and the Lawyers in the however not noticeable in 4 Tribunals (11.1%). Course of Proceedings at the Tribunals On probing further, it was discovered that there KDI assessed 36 Tribunals throughout the Coun- may have been only one pressman at each of try. In the Course of the proceedings, the audi- the four Tribunals and they did not stay through ence in the court room were coordinated and the entire proceedings. One of the Tribunals in well behaved. There were no reports of any Bayelsa State had to write a request letter for misbehavior or interference by any member of the presence of the media at the Tribunal. Lagos the audience. On the day judgment was deliv- State opined that the Political Parties involved in ered, the audience in 31Tribunals representing the petition filing, Alliance for Democracy and 86.1% were properly coordinated. In 5 Tribunals Labour Party, were not popular and their activi- (13.9%) however, the audience were rowdy and ties were not newsworthy, so the pressmen did restless until the reading of the judgment be- not give the proceedings their full attention. gan. The lawyers in 36 Tribunals across the Federa- As regards the Press, a number of the Press men tion were professional and coordinated. There were present in 31 of the Tribunals (86.1%) as- was no report of unruly behavior of any of the sessed. They were well behaved, coordinated lawyers involved in these petitions. There was and they stayed throughout the proceedings however reports that some lawyers were tensed of the Tribunal. There was no record of interfer- just before the judges started delivering judg- ence by the Press men in the proceedings of the ment.

Table 3.14: Assessment of Behavioral Pattern at the Tribunal

COORDINATED ROWDY INTERFERING PRESENCE NOT NOTICEABLE 86.1% 13.9% 0.0% 0.0% Audience behavior 31 5 88.9% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% Press behavior 32 0 0 4 Lawyers Behav- 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ior 36

128 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 3.12: Percentage distribution of the behavioral pattern in the courtroom across the 36 States Tribunal and FCT

3.4.4 Assessment of the condition of the fans. 83.3% showed that there are working toi- courtroom and its environment in 35 lets; these were however mostly not accessible States and the Federal Capital Territory of to the courtroom audience. While 47.2% of the the Federation venues of tribunals were accessible to Persons All the 36 (thirty-six)representing 100% of the with Disability, 52.8% were not accessible. It was venues used for the Election Tribunal were con- discovered that someof the Tribunals were sit- nected to Electric Power; a good number of them uated in the upper part of story buildings, and however have stand by generating set for when these buildings do not have elevators or ramps. the electric power goes off. 91.7% of the rooms Only seven of the Tribunals made interpreter were adequately lighted. Some of the rooms available in local language and for people liv- were conducive as 41.7% of the rooms have ing with hearing disability/impairment and this air conditioner and few of them have a num- represents just 19.4% of the Election Tribunals ber of Industrial fans stationed around. Others assessed. 21 (58.3%) of the Tribunals assessed do not have either air conditioner or industrial had public address system.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 129 Table 3.15: Assessment of Tribunal Facilities

ELECTRIC ADEQUATE AIR CONDI- WORKING ACCESSI- PAS INTER- POWER LIGHTINING TIONING TOILET BLE FOR PRETER PWDS YES 36 33 15 30 17 21 7 NO 0 3 21 6 19 15 29

ELECTRIC ADEQUATE AIR CONDI- WORKING ACCESSI- PAS INTER- POWER LIGHTINING TIONING TOILET BLE FOR PRETER PWDS YES 100.0% 91.7% 41.7% 83.3% 47.2% 58.3% 19.4% NO 0.0% 8.3% 58.3% 16.7% 52.8% 41.7% 80.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Figure 3.13: Percentage distribution of the court room conditions across the 35 States Tribunal and FCT

130 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 3.4.4.1 Assessment of Courtroom accessi- maining three were not PWD friendly in terms bility to Persons with Disability by Zones of accessibility. South East has two (2) out of On analysis, it was found that South-South five (5) facilities accessible to PWDs. South West where PWDs could access four (4) out of the five has the least number of facilities accessible to (5) facilities has the highest number of Tribunals PWDs. Persons with Disability mainstreaming with accessibility for persons living with disabili- and inclusion demands that their interests are ty. Out of the seven (7) Tribunals assessed for the considered in the location of facilities for Tribu- North Central, three (3) were accessible while nals. From the analysis done, it would appear the remaining four (4) were not. North West and that the interests of these special people were North East each have three (3) out of the six (6) not put into consideration when situating the tribunals assessed were accessible while the re- Tribunals.

Table 3.16: Assessment of Tribunals’ Accessibility to PWDs

ACCESSSIBILITY TO PWDS

GEO-POLITICAL ZONE yes no SOUTH WEST 2 4 SOUTH SOUTH 4 2 SOUTH EAST 2 3 NORTH WEST 3 3 NORTH EAST 3 3 NORTH CENTRAL 3 4 Total 17 19

Figure 3.14: Frequency distribution of the court room accessibility to PWD’S in the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones in Nigeria.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 131 3.4.4.2 Analysis of Availability of Interpret- will of justice could be oiled in such situations. er at Tribunals by Zone PWD mainstreaming and inclusion also require that interpreters/ skilled sign language persons The language of the court/tribunal is English be employed to provide interpretation for per- and as such, the business of the tribunals is con- sons with hearing impairment. ducted in English language. The unlettered indigents are cheated out of understanding the Tri- It is noteworthy that interpreters were not made bunals’ proceedings and always had to rely on available for people with hearing impairment or hear-say in order to comprehend. Transparency the local language of the natives in the seven demands that interpreter be provided for the (7) courts assessed for North Central. North- citizenry in the local language of the jurisdic- East, South-South and South-East each had one tion in which the tribunal was situated. In cases Tribunal with available interpreter. Out of the where interpreters are provided, they are not six Tribunals assessed in the North West, three trained in the art of interpretations. They were Tribunals had interpreters while the other three persons who could communicate fairly in both had no interpreter. Two out of the six assessed the English and the local language in question in the South West had interpreters. and have been requested to help so that the

Table 3.17: Assessment of Availability of Interpreters

PRESENCE OF INTERPRETER IN EACH STATE’S TRIBUNAL

GEO-POLITICAL ZONE yes no SOUTH WEST 2 4 SOUTH SOUTH 1 5 SOUTH EAST 1 4 NORTH WEST 3 3 NORTH EAST 1 5 NORTH CENTRAL 0 7 Total 8 28

132 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 3.15: Frequency distribution of the presence of interpreters in the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones in Nigeria

3.4.4.3 Assessment of Tribunal facilities South West had functioning PAS. Three out of with Public Address System seven in the North Central had PAS. Four out of six in the North East had PAS. In the South- Assessment shows that a very good number of South, three out of six Tribunals had public the Tribunals were provided with Public Address address system. South East has three Tribunals System (PAS) to ensure that the judges and the with PAS out of the five facilities assessed. North solicitors were able to communicate without West had PAS in five Tribunal facilities out of the stress and strains. Five tribunals out of six in the six assessed.

Table 3.18: Assessment of the availability of PAS in Zones

PUBLIC ADRESS SYSTEM AVAILABILITY

GEO-POLITICAL ZONE yes no SOUTH WEST 5 1 SOUTH SOUTH 3 3 SOUTH EAST 3 2 NORTH WEST 5 1 NORTH EAST 4 2 NORTH CENTRAL 3 4 Total 23 13

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 133 Figure 3.16: Frequency distribution of the Public Address System availabilityin the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones in Nigeria 3.4.4.4 Assessment of Tribunal facilities equipped with AC, out of the six Tribunals as- with Air Conditioning sessed in the North-Eastern geo-political zone, three were equipped with AC. The same thing Looking at conduciveness of the Tribunals goes for the South-South; three out of six Tribu- across the six geo-political zones of the Feder- nals were furnished with AC. In the South-West, ation, data gathered indicated that the six as- two out of six tribunals assessed had AC, while sessed Election Petition Tribunals situated in the two out of the five tribunals assessed in the North-West were provided with air condition- South-East had AC. ing (AC) facilities. While four out of the seven Tribunals assessed for the North-Central were

Table 3.19: Assessment of the Availability of Air Conditioning

AIR CONDITIONING AVAILABLITY

GEO-POLITICAL ZONE yes no SOUTH WEST 2 4 SOUTH SOUTH 3 3 SOUTH EAST 2 3 NORTH WEST 6 0 NORTH EAST 3 3 NORTH CENTRAL 4 3 Total 20 16

134 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 3.17: Distribution of the Air Condition availability in the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones in Nigeria

3.4.5 Assessment of Tension, Unrest and of the Tribunals had security officials screening Security Issues people into the venue. Parties involved in the petitions and their supporters were seen tensed, Election Petition Tribunals in 35 States and the anxious and agitated just before the delivery of FCT across Nigeria have been assessed so far. At judgment in almost all the Tribunals. Anambra the commencement of Election Tribunal, five State’s Election Tribunal witnessed certain de- States’ Tribunals – Bayelsa, Borno, Kogi, Taraba, gree of unrest because party loyalists were de- Yobe and Zamfara States were moved to sit in nied entrance into the premises of the Tribunal. Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory for security Outright fight ensued amongst the party loyal- reasons. At the Judgment stage, 3governorship ist of the parties to the petition in Bauchi State; Tribunals, Imo, Katsina and Sokoto States, were although this was outside the perimeter fence moved to Abuja; though no official reasons were of the venue of the Election Tribunal. The secu- given, it was generally believed that the move- rity agencies however took immediate control ment was made to forestall any security breach of the situation. But for the heavy presence of that may arise in the various States. Security was security personnel in Katsina State, there would heightened on the day judgment was delivered have been security breach in and around the in most of the venue of the Tribunals as there Tribunal. were large crowd outside the premises. Some

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 135 Table 3.20: Assessment of Tension, Unrest and security

AIR CONDITIONING AVAILABLITY

TENSION/UNREST/SE- yes no TOTAL CURITY ISSUES? NO. OF STATES 4 32 36

Figure 3.18: Frequency distribution of tension/unrest/security issues in the 36 Tribunals by Geo-political zones in Nigeria

136 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) PART FOUR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 137 4.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ELEC- A quick glance at how petitions were filed in TION PETITIONS FILED AFTER THE 2015 2015 and 2019 showed a high increase in the AND 2019 GENERAL ELECTIONS number of petitions filed in 2019 as against the number filed in 2015. A total number of 811 4.1.1 Total Number of Petitions filed Across petitions were filed in 2019 while 677 petitions 36 States and the FCT in 2015 and 2019 were filed in 2015.

Figure 4.1: Total Number of Petitions filed Across 36 States and the FCT in 2015 and 2019

4.1.2 Comparative Assessment of Gover- Bauchi, Cross River, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Kano, norship Petition Filing Pattern in 2015 and Kwara, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun and Zam- 2019 fara) had increase in the number of petitions filed in the 2019 election year for the Governor- Whereas Adamawa, Bauchi, Kano and Niger did ship position. Only 4 States (Delta, Yobe, Borno not file any governorship petition in 2015elec- and Akwa Ibom) had decreased number of petition year, petitions were filed in 2019; and, al- tions filed. 11 States (Benue, Ebonyi, Jigawa, Ka- though Borno and Yobe filed petitions against duna, Katsina, Kebbi, Oyo, Plateau, Rivers, Sokoto the governorship elections in 2015, they stayed and Taraba) filed the same number of petitions away from the Governorship Election Petition in the two-election year under analysis. Tribunals in 2019. 14 States (Abia, Adamawa,

138 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 4.2: Total Number of Governorship Petitions filed in 2015 and 2019

TABLE 4.1: COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNORSHIP PETITION FILING PATTERN IN 2015 AND 2019 State with Petition State with Increase State with Equal States with No Decrease in 2019 Petition in 2019 Number of Petition Petition in 2015 in 2015& 2019 and 2019 DELTA ABIA BENUE ANAMBRA

YOBE ADAMAWA EBONYI BAYELSA

BORNO BAUCHI JIGAWA EDO

AKWA-IBOM CROSS RIVER KADUNA EKITI

TOTAL = 4 ENUGU KATSINA KOGI

GOMBE KEBBI ONDO

IMO OYO OSUN

KANO PLATEAU TOTAL=7

KWARA RIVERS

LAGOS SOKOTO

NASARAWA TARABA

NIGER TOTAL=11 OGUN

ZAMFARA

TOTAL=14

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 139 Figure 4.3: Frequency distribution on Status of the Governorship petition filedin the 36 Tribunals in Nigeria

4.1.3 Pattern of acceptance of the ballots in Kano and Niger) in 2015 while only 3 States 2015 and 2019 (Borno, Jigawa and Yobe) decided the 2019 governorship election on the First Ballot. This shows In the 29 States where governorship elections that the only State where election was decided took place during the 2015 and 2019 general on the First Ballot in 2015 and 2019 is Jigawa elections, elections were decided on the First State. Ballot in 5 States (Adamawa, Bauchi, Jigawa,

Table 4.2: First Ballot Victory in the Gover- norship Election 2015 2019

Adamawa Borno Bauchi Jigawa Jigawa Yobe Kano Niger Total = 5 Total = 3

140 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 4.4: Frequency distribution of first ballot victory

4.1.4 Breakdown of the Governorship peti- crease from the 2015’s six petitions to thirteen tion filed by the 6 geopolitical Zones at the petitions in 2019. In the same vein, North-Cen- various tribunals in 2015 and 2019 respec- tral and North East which recorded four and tively five petitions respectively in 2015 both had an increase to eleven in 2019. South-West went Eleven petitions were filed after the Governor- from 4 petitions in 2015 to six petitions in 2019. ship Elections in 2015 in the South-South. This This analysis shows that the only zone where number decreased to nine in 2019. The South- the number of aggrieved party in an election East where only six petitions were filed in 2015, reduced is the South-South Zone. Every other recorded an astronomical increase to seventeen Zone witnessed an increase in the number of petitions in 2019. North-West Zones saw an in- petitions filed.

TABLE 4.3: COMPARATIVE BREAKDOWN OF GOVERNORSHIP PETITION BY ZONES

2015 Percentage 2019 Percentage

SS 11 30.56% 9 13.43% SE 6 16.67% 17 25.37%

NW 6 16.67% 13 19.40% NC 4 11.11% 11 16.42%

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 141 SW 4 11.11% 6 8.96% NE 5 13.88% 11 16.42%

TOTAL 36 100% 67 100%

Figure 4.5: Frequency distribution of the Governorship petition filed by the 6 geopolitical zones at the various Tribunals in 2015 and 2019 respectively

4.2 Comparative Analysis of Grounds for enteen (39.50%) petitioners prayed the Tribu- Petitions in the Governorship Election Tri- nals to declare the victories of the respondents bunal of 2015 & 2019 void because they were not duly elected by the majority of the votes cast at the polls in 2015, After the 2015 general elections, 39 petitions twelve (24.00%) petitioners made the same were filed against the return or election of the prayers in 2019. governorship candidates in 24 States while 26 Six (13.95%) petitioners accused the respon- States had 67 election petitions filed in 2019. dents of lack of qualification to contest elec- Cases under comparative analysis are 36 petitions in 2015, while seven (14.00%) petitioners tions filed in 2015 and 67 petitions filed in 2019 made the same allegations in 2019. Two (4.65%) Eighteen (41.90%) out of the thirty-nine pe- petitioners claimed that they were unlawfully titions filed in 2015 alleged non-compliance excluded from the polls in 2015; the number of while nineteen (42.00%) out of the sixty-seven petitioners alleging unlawful exclusion from the assessed in 2019 alleged the same. In 2015, sev- polls increased to nine (20.00%) in 2019.

142 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) TABLE 4.4: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF GROUNDS FOR GOVERNORSHIP PETITION IN 2015 AND 2019 GROUND ANALYSIS 2015 Percentage 2019 Percentage

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE 18 41.90% 21 42.00% ELECTORAL ACT NOT DULY ELECTED BY MAJORITY 17 39.50% 12 24.00% OF THE VOTES CAST NOT QUALIFIED 6 13.95% 7 14.00% UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION 2 4.65% 9 20.00%

TOTAL 100% 100%

Figure 4.6: Percentage comparison of the Governorship petition filed in 2015 and 2019

4.3 Comparative Analysis of Governorship (22) petitions were struck out in 2019. In 2015, Tribunal Judgment in 2015 & 2019 there was one partial cancellation and one full cancellation of the elections. 2015 also record- In the determination of the cases before the ed two (2) petitioners being declared the win- tribunals in 2015, seventeen (17) of the thir- ner of elections, having determined that they ty-six (36) petitions filed were dismissed while scored the majority of the lawful votes cast at forty-four (44) of the sixty-seven (67) analyzed the polls; 2019 on the other hand did not record petitions filed in 2019 were dismissed. Nine (9) any partial or full cancellation; nor did it record a petitions were struck out in 2015, twenty-two petitioner being declared the winner.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 143 In other words, all petitioners at the 2019 Gov- although this outcome does not benefit the ernorship Election Tribunals lost their cases at petitioner, a Supreme Court’s decision38 having the Tribunal stage. A petitioner’s prayer was overtaken the decision of the Tribunal. however upheld at the 2019 Election Tribunals37,

37 Bala Bello Maru& Accord v Mukhtar Sheu Idris EPT/ZM/GOV/3/2019 38 National Working Committee of APC &Ors v. KabiruMarafa&Ors

Table 4.5: Comparative Analysis of Governorship Judgment in 2015 and 2019 2015 2019 DISMISSED 17 44 PETITION UPHELD - 1 STRUCKOUT 9 22 PARTIAL CANCELLATION 1 - PETITIONER DECLARED 2 - WINNER TOTAL 29 67

Figure 4.7: Frequency distribution of the Governorship Tribunal JudgmentIn 2015 & 2019

144 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 4.4 Comparative Analysis of the Reasons because the petitioner failed to participate in Adduced for the Judgment at the Gover- pre-hearing session. In 2019, twenty-one (21) norship Tribunals in 2015 and 2019 petitioners withdrew their cases from the Tri- bunal for varying reasons; only one (1) petition The Tribunals, in 2015, dismissed seventeen (17) was however withdrawn from the Tribunals in petitions on the ground that the petitioners 2015. In 2019, two (2) petitions were dismissed failed to establish their cases; on the other hand, for lack of diligent prosecution in 2019, no re- thirty (30) petitions failed in 2019 for the same cord of same outcome was found as regards reason adduced. Whereas, three (3) petitions the 2015 Election Petition Tribunal. Though no were dismissed in 2015 for being incompetent, records were found to the effect that a petition five (5) got dismissed for the same reason in was dismissed for tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction 2019. Filing of pre-hearing notice out of time in 2015, one (1) petition was dismissed for that was the basis for dismissing four (4) petitions in reason in 2019. In 2015, three (3) petitioners 2015; six (6) petitions got the same treatment were able to establish their cases while only one in 2019. One (1) petition was dismissed in 2015 (1) petitioner was able to do the same in 2019.

Table 4.6: Comparative Analysis of Reasons Adduced for Judgment in 2015 and 2018 Governorship EPT PETITION COURT’S REASONS 2015 2019 Failure to establish case 17 30 Petitioner able to establish his 3 1 allegation Incompetence 3 5 Tribunal lack jurisdiction 0 1 Case Withdrawn 1 21 Filing of Pre-hearing notice out of time 4 6 Lack of diligent prosecution 0 2 Petitioner abandoned petition 0 1 Failure to participate in 1 0 pre-hearing session Total 29 67

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 145 Figure 4.8: Frequency distribution of the Governorship Tribunal Reasons for Judgment In 2015 & 2019

4.5 Pattern of Governorship Election Peti- the filing of 2 petitions each while AAC, Accord, tions filed by Political Parties AD, ADC, ADP,AGA, APM, ASD, DA, GPN, MRDD, NDLP, PPN, SDP and SNL filed one (1) governor- 67 (sixty-seven) governorship election petitions ship petition each. APGA was involved in the in the 26 States of the Federation were assessed. filing of four (4) governorship petitions across Assessment showed that PDP were the peti- Nigeria. Labour Party and People for Democrat- tioners and co-petitioners in 8 (eight) petitions ic Movement each took five (5) Petitions to the while in conjunction with their governorship Governorship Election Tribunals across Nigeria. candidates, the APC filed 14 (fourteen) petitions. All People’s Party were involved in the filing of Action Alliance, ANP and PPP were involved in six (6) election Petitions.

Table 4.7: Analysis of Petition filed by Political Parties in 2019 POLITICAL PAR 2019 Action Alliance (AA) 2 African Action Congress (AAC) 1 ACCORD 1 Alliance for Democracy (AD) 1

146 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) African Democratic Congress (ADC) 1

Action Democratic Party (ADP) 1

All Grassroots Alliance (AGA) 1

Alliance National Party (ANP) 2 All Progressive Congress (APC) 14 All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) 4 Allied Peoples Movement (APM) 1

All People’s Party (APP) 6 ASD 1 DA 1 Green Party of Nigeria (GPN) 1 Labour Party (LP) 5 MMN 1 Movement for the Restoration and Defence of De- 1 mocracy (MRDD) NDLP 1 People for Democratic Change (PDC) 1 People for Democratic Movement (PDM) 5 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) 8 PPN 1 Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) 2 SDP 1 SNC 1 Total 65 of 67

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 147 4.6 Comparative Analysis of Pattern of Gov- African Action Congress, Alliance for Democ- ernorship Election Petitions filed by Politi- racy, Action Democratic Party, Allied Peoples cal Parties in 2015 and 2019 Movement, Green Party of Nigeria, Movement for the Restoration and Defence of Democracy, Comparing the pattern of petition filing in the People for Democratic Change, SDP, SCN, NDLP, 2015 and 2019 governorship election petition DA, ASD, MMN and People Party of Nigeria did by political parties, it was discovered that while not participate in filing governorship election Peoples Democratic Party filed nine petitions in petition in the 2015 election-year; they each 2015, it filed eight petitions in 2019. All Progres- however, took one petition to the governorship sive Congress filed seven petitions in 2015; the election Tribunal in 2019. While Action Alliance, party however doubled its governorship peti- All Grassroot Alliance, Alliance National Party tions in 2019. ACCORD Party stayed true to its and PPP did not go to the Election Tribunal in one petition at both the 2015 and 2019 Election 2015, they all however filed two governorship Petition Tribunals. All Progressive Grand Alliance petitions each at the 2019 Election Tribunal. In also stayed true to its four governorship elec- like manner, All People’s Party that did not par- tion petition in both election-years under anal- ticipate in the 2015 Governorship Election Tri- ysis. While African Democratic Congress and La- bunal in 2015 went all out to the Tribunal with bour Party filed three petitions each at the 2015 six petitions in 2019. People for Democratic Election Tribunal, they both filed one and five Movement also did not go the Tribunals in 2015; petitions respectively at the 2019 Election Tri- it however filed five petitions at the Governor- bunal. While MPP filed two petitions in 2015, it ship Election Petition Tribunal in 2019. stayed away from the Election Tribunals in 2019.

Table 4.8: Analysis of Petition filed by Political Parties against the Governorship election of 2015 and 2019 POLITICAL PAR 2015 2019 Action Alliance (AA) 0 2 African Action Congress (AAC) 0 1 ACCORD 1 1 Alliance for Democracy (AD) 0 1 African Democratic Congress (ADC) 3 1 Action Democratic Party (ADP) 0 1

148 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) All Grassroots Alliance (AGA) 0 1

Alliance National Party (ANP) 0 2 All Progressive Congress (APC) 7 14 All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) 4 4 Allied Peoples Movement (APM) 0 1

All People’s Party (APP) 0 6 ASD 0 1 DA 0 1 Green Party of Nigeria (GPN) 0 1 Labour Party (LP) 3 5 MMN 0 1 Movement for the Restoration and Defence of 0 1 Democracy (MRDD) NDLP 0 1 People for Democratic Change (PDC) 0 1 People for Democratic Movement (PDM) 0 5 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) 9 8 PPN 0 1 Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) 0 2 SDP 0 1 SNC 0 1 Total 29 65 of 67

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 149 Figure 4.10: shows political parties analysis for 2015 and 2019 Governorship EPT

4.7 Comparative Analysis of petitions filed fourteen (14) petitions in the 2019 election-year by Regular Parties at the 2015 and 2019 as opposed to the seven (7) petitions filed in the Governorship EPT 2015 election-year, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) with nine (9) petitions in 2015 and eight Comparative analysis showed that only five par- (8) petitions in 2019 election-years, Labour Par- ties participated in both the 2015 and 2019 Gov- ty (LP) with three (3) petitions in the 2015 elec- ernorship Election Petition Tribunal. The parties tion-year and four (4) petitions in the 2019 elec- are: All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) with tion year, and Accord with just one (1) petition four (4) petitions in both 2015 and 2019 elec- in both election-years under analysis. tion-years, All Progressive Congress (APC) with

Table 4.9: Comparative Analysis of petitions filed by Regular Political Parties at the 2015 and 2019 Governorship EPT POLITICAL PARTIES GOV. 2015 GOV. 2019 All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) 4 4 All Progressive Congress (APC) 7 14 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) 9 8 Labour Party (LP) 3 5 ACCORD 1 1

150 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 4.11: Number of petitions filed by Parties regular at the 2015 and 2019 Gover- norship EPT

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 151 BREAKDOWN OF THE PETITION FILED FOR CASES AT THE VARIOUS TRIBUNALS IN 2015 AND 2019 PART FIVE

152 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 5.1Breakdown of the petition filed for cas- States House of Assembly Election Tribunal in es at the various tribunals in 2015 and 2019 2015. This increased to four hundred and twenty respectively (420) in 2019. Thirty-six (36) governorship election petitions were filed in 2015, as against the At the Senatorial Election Tribunal, seventy-sev- sixty-seven (67) filed in 2019. Four (4) election en (77) petitions were filed in 2015, as against petitions were filed against the 2019 presiden- the one hundred and five (105) petitions filed tial elections, although none was filed in 2015. in 2019. For the House of Representatives, one In all,eight hundred and eleven (811) petitions hundred and eighty-three (183) petitions were were filed against the 2019 general elections filed in 2015; 2019 saw an increase in the figure while six hundred and seventy-seven (677) peti- to two hundred and fifteen (215). Three hun- tions were filed in 2015. dred and eighty-one (381) petitions filed at the

Table 5.1: Comparative Analysis of Breakdown of Petitions filed in 2015 and 2019 PETITION FILED 2015 2019 SEN. 77 105 HOUSE OF REP 183 215 SHA 381 420 GOV 36 67 PRESIDENTIAL 0 4 TOTAL 677 811

Figure 5.1: Frequency distribution of the petitions filed at the various tribunals in 2015 and 2019 respectively

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 153 5.2 Summary of All the Petitions Filed at tribunal in 2015 and increased their petition to the Tribunals by Geo-Political Zones 115 in 2019. South-West had a reduction of petition filed from the 126 in 2015 to 94 petitions While South-South filed 195 petitions at the in 2019. North-East on the other hand increased tribunal in 2015, 183 petitions were filed at the petition filed from 64 in 2015 to 93 in 2019. Fed- same zone in 2019. 143 petitions were filed in eral Capital Territory maintained the number of the South-East in 2015 but this increased to petitions filed in 2015 and 2016 at 3 petitions. 174 in 2019. North-West went to the tribunals While no petition was filed against the presi- with just 39 petitions in 2015 but had 145 filed dential election result in 2015, 4 petitions were in 2019. North-Central filed 107 petitions at the filed at the Presidential Election Tribunal in 2019.

Table 5.2: Summary of All the Petitions Filed at the Tribunals by Geo-Political Zones GEO-POLITICAL ZONE 2015 2019 SS 195 183 SE 143 174 NW 39 145 NC 110 118 SW 126 94 NE 64 93 PRESIDENTIAL 0 4 TOTAL 677 811

Figure 5.2: Frequency distribution of the petition filed at the tribunal by geo-political zones

154 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 5.3 Analysis of Petitions filed against Sen- information on 46 of the 105 petitions. Analy- atorial, Federal Constituencies and State sis revealed that 55.17% of the 46 petitions as- Constituencies Elections of the 2019 Gen- sessed were grounded on non-compliance with eral Elections the Electoral Act and Corrupt Practices. 31.3% of the petitions were brought before the Tribunals 5.3.1 Senatorial Election Petition Tribunal on the ground that the Respondents were not Data available to Kimpact showed that 105 peti- duly elected by majority of the votes cast at the tions were filed in 30 States and the Federal Cap- 2019 General Elections. 3.45% of the petitioners ital Territory, against the winners of the February alleged that the Respondents were not quali- 2019 Elections. Petitions against the Senatorial fied in accordance with the laws to contest the Elections were not filed at the Election Petition elections. 10.35% of the Petitioners alleged that Tribunals sitting in Jigawa, Kano, Katsina Kebbi, they were unlawfully excluded from contesting Kwara and Osun. Kimpact was able to gather the elections.

Figure 5.3: Analysis of Grounds for 2019 Senate Election Petition Tribunal

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 155 5.3.2 Comparative Analysis elected by majority of the votes cast, 42.11% In comparing the grounds upon which peti- of the petitions assessed were filed in 2015 tions were filed in 2015 and 2019, information while in 2019, 31.03% petitions were filed. While gathered showed that 77 petitions were filed 10.52% of the petition assessed for the accused in 2015 while 72 out of the 77 were assessed. the Respondent of non-qualification to contest Comparative analysis showed that only 42.11% the elections in 2015, 3.45 predicated their ar- of the cases analyzed for the 2015 Senatorial guments on the same ground in 2019. 5.26% of Election Petitions were brought on the grounds the petitioners alleged that they were unlaw- that there was non-compliance with the Elec- fully excluded from the elections in 2015, while toral Act and Corrupt Practices while 55.17% 10.35% of the assessed petitions alleged the were filed on the same ground in 2019. On the same ground in 2019 ground that the Respondents were not duly

Figure 5.4: Comparative Analysis of Grounds for 2015 and 2019 Senate Election Petition Tribunals

5.3.3 House of Representatives Election Pe- 2019 General Elections. The Tribunals in Jigawa, tition Tribunal Katsina, Kebbi, Kwara and Niger States did not receive any petition against the House of Rep- In the course of data gathering, Kimpact found resentatives Elections. Out of the 215 Petitions that 215 petitions were filed at the various filed, Kimpact was able to assess 70 of the pe- House of Representatives Election Petition Tri- titions. 45.23% of the petitions assessed were bunals across 31 States of the Federation and grounded on the allegations that the elections the Federal Capital Territory after the February were not conducted in compliance with the

156 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Electoral Act. 28.57% of the petitions assessed spondents of non-qualification to contest the were filed on the ground that the Respondents said elections. 11.90% of the petitioners alleged did not win the elections by the majority of the that they were unlawfully excluded from the votes cast at the polls. 14.30% accused the re- polls.

Figure 5.5: Analysis of Grounds for 2019 House of Representative Election Petition Tri- bunals

5.3.4 Comparative Analysis ground in 2019. While 36.47% of the petition- In order to compare the pattern of the grounds ers grounded their petition on the fact that the upon which petitions were presented to the Respondents were not duly elected by majority House of Representatives Election Petition Tri- of the votes casted at the polls in 2015, 28.57% bunals in 2015 and 2019, Kimpact found that of the petitions assesses were grounded on 183 petitions were filed against the victories of the same allegation that the Respondent were the returned members of the House of Repre- not duly elected by majority of the votes cast sentatives after the 2015 General Elections. Out at the polls. 23.53% of the petitioners assessed of the 183 petitions filed, 151 of the petitions for 2015 alleged that the Respondents did not were assessed. Comparative Analysis showed qualify to contest the elections, while 14.30% that 37.65% of the petitions assessed in 2015 made the same allegations in 2019. 2.35% of the were filed based on the ground that there petitioners assessed for the 2015 claimed that was non-compliance with the Electoral Act in they were unlawfully excluded from the polls conducting the elections while 45.23% of the while 11.90% of the petition assessed made the petitioners based their petitions on the same same claim in 2019.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 157 Figure 5.6: Comparative Analysis of Grounds for 2015 and 2019 House of Representa- tive Election Petition Tribunals

5.3.5 State Houses of Assembly Election sessed were filed on the ground that there was Petition Tribunal non-compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the said elections. 23.33% alleged Kimpact found that 420 petitions were filed that the Respondents were not duly elected by against the State Houses of Assembly Elections majority of the votes casted at the 2019 polls. of 2019 in 33 States across the Federal Republic Another 23.33% grounded their petitions on of Nigeria. There were no petitions filed against the fact the Respondents were not qualified in the State Houses of Assembly Elections of 2019 accordance with the laws to contest the said at the Ekiti, Jigawa and Yobe States Houses of 2019 elections. 10% of the petitioners claimed Assembly Election Petition Tribunals. Out of that they were unlawfully excluded from the the 420 petitions filed, Kimpact was able to as- 2019 polls. sess 118 petitions. 43.33% of the petitions as-

158 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 5.7: Analysis of Grounds for 2019 State House of Assembly Election Petition Tri- bunals

5.3.6 Comparative Analysis of the petitions assessed for 2015 and 23.33% of the petitions assessed for 2019 grounded their To make comparative analysis between the reasons for filing on the fact that the Respon- grounds upon which the State Houses of As- dents were not duly elected by majority of the sembly Elections Petitions were filed in 2015 votes cast at the polls on both election-years and 2019, Kimpact gathered information which under analysis. 24.72% of the petitions assessed showed that 381 petitions were filed at the State for 2015 and 23.33% of those assessed for 2019 Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunals alleged that the Respondents did not qualify in 2015. Out of the 381 petitions filed, 313 were under the laws to contest the State Houses of assessed. Comparative analysis showed that Assembly Elections in both election-years un- 35.95% of the assessed petitions 2015 were filed der analysis. 2.25% of the petitions assessed for based on the grounds that there was non-com- 2015 and 10% of the petitions assessed for 2019 pliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of claimed that they were unlawfully excluded the elections, while 43.33% of those assessed for from the polls. 2019 had the same ground of petition. 37.08%

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 159 Figure 5.8: Comparative Analysis of Grounds for 2015 and 2019 State House of Assem- bly Election Petition Tribunal

5.4 Comparative Analysis of the Judgment struck out for different reasons, 7 - 15.22% of the Delivered at the 2015 and 2019 Election assessed petition for the 2019 Senatorial elec- Petition Tribunals in the cases of Senato- tions were struck out. 4 - 5.56% and 1 - 2.17% of rial, Federal Constituencies and State Con- the assessed petitions for 2015 and 2019 Sena- stituencies Petitions torial election petitions respectively succeeded in getting partial cancellation of the elections. 5.4.1 Senatorial Election Petition Tribunal Partial Cancellation meant that election in some While 2.78% representing 2 of the petitions were polling units or the elections in a number of the upheld at the 2015 Senatorial Election Petition Local Government Areas comprising the Sena- Tribunal, none of the petitions assessed for the torial District where discrepancies were estab- 2019 Senatorial Election Petition was upheld at lished were cancelled and a supplementary the Tribunal. 49 - 68.05% of the 2015 Senatorial election ordered by the Tribunal. 4 - 5.56% of Petitions were dismissed for varying reasons at the assessed petitions for the 2015 Election Tri- the Tribunal, 36 representing 78.26% of the Sen- bunals and 2 - 4.35% of the assessed petitions atorial Petitions got dismissed at the 2019 Tribu- for the 2019 Election Tribunals succeeded in nal. While 13 - 18.05% of the assessed petition obtaining full cancellation and a rerun ordered. filed at the 2015 Election Petition Tribunals were

160 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 5.9: Comparative Analysis of Senate Judgement for 2015 and 2019 Election Peti- tion Tribunal

5.4.2 House of Representatives Election Pe- ing reasons, 7 representing 10% of the assessed tition Tribunal petitions for the 2019 were struck out. 5 representing 3.25% and 4 representing 5.71% of the 3 representing 1.95% of the assessed petitions assessed petitions for 2015 and 2019 House of were upheld at the 2015 Election Petition Tri- Representatives election petitions respective- bunal, while 4 representing 5.71% of the peti- ly succeeded in having elections partially can- tions assessed for the 2019 Senatorial Election celled and supplementary elections ordered by Petition were upheld at the Tribunal. 111 rep- the Tribunal in those places where the elections resenting 72.07% of the 2015 House of Repre- were cancelled. 3 representing 1.95% of the as- sentatives Petitions were dismissed for different sessed petitions for the 2015 Election Tribunals reasons at the Tribunal, 55 representing 78.58% succeeded in obtaining full cancellation of the of the assessed Petitions got dismissed at the elections and a rerun ordered, while none of the 2019 Tribunal. While 32 representing 20.78% of assessed petitions for the 2019 Election Tribu- the assessed petitions filed at the 2015 Elec- nals had the same success. tion Petition Tribunal were struck out for vary-

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 161 Figure 5.10: Comparative Analysis of House of Representative Judgement for 2015 and 2019 EPT

5.4.3 State Houses of Assembly (SHA) Elec- struck out for different reasons, 7 representing tion Petition Tribunal 5.93% of the assessed petitions for the 2019 SHA elections were struck out. 18 representing While 8 representing 2.63% of the assessed pe- 5.92% and 4 representing 3.39% of the assessed titions were upheld at the 2015 Election Petition petitions for 2015 and 2019 SHA election peti- Tribunal, 2 representing 1.69% of the petitions tions respectively succeeded in getting partial assessed for the 2019 SHA Election Petitions cancellation of the elections and a supplemen- were upheld at the Tribunal. 195 representing tary election ordered by the Tribunal. 31 rep- 64.14% of the 2015 SHA Petitions were dis- resenting 10.20% of the assessed petitions for missed for varying reasons at the Tribunal, 104 the 2015 Election Tribunals and 1 representing representing 88.14% of the SHA Petitions got 0.85% of the assessed petitions for the 2019 dismissed at the 2019 Tribunal. While 52 repre- Election Tribunals succeeded in obtaining full senting 17.11% of the assessed petitions filed cancellation and a rerun ordered. at the 2015 Election Petition Tribunals were

162 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Figure 5.11: Comparative analysis of SHA Judgement for 2015 and 2019 EPT

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 163 APPEALS ARISING FROM THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNALS AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PART SIX TRIBUNAL

164 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 6.1 APPEALS ARISING FROM THE DECISION bunals set up for the purposes of adjudicating OF THE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETI- these petitions concluded the cases within the TION TRIBUNALS AND THE PRESIDENTIAL provided time and handed down judgments ELECTION TRIBUNAL within time. It will also be recollected that 65.7%, representing 44 petitions were dismissed To corroborate the decisions of the 2019 Elec- and 32.8% representing 22 petitions were struck tion Petition Tribunals analyzed above and de- out at the Governorship Election Petition Tribu- termine if any of the decisions in the Presiden- nals for varying reasons. Dissatisfied with the tial and Governorship Election Tribunals were decisions of the tribunals, the data gathered upturned on appeal, Kimpact proceeded with showed that 28 governorship petitioners filed monitoring the appeal cases that arose from the appeal at the Court of Appeal, which has the Election Tribunal judgments. Constitutional mandate to review the decisions of the lower court – the Election Petition Tribu- PRESIDENTIAL CASES nals. The 28 appeals emanated from 20 States. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, the Analysis showed that 27 out of the 28 appeals Court of Appeal being the court of first instance. filed were dismissed while 1 was struck out, the Two appeals were filed at the Supreme Court by appellant having withdrawn his appeal. Further petitioners who were not satisfied with the de- analysis showed that Ogun State filed the high- cision of the Election Tribunal. The two appeals est number of appeals – 5. Ogun State was fol- were filed Chief Ambrose Albert of the Hope lowed closely by Imo State which filed 3 appeals. Democratic Party and Alhaji Abubakar Atiku Nasarawa and Lagos States each had 2 appeals of the Peoples Democratic Party. Both appeals filed, while Abia, Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom, Bauchi, were dismissed for lacking in merit. Benue, Cross-River, Delta, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Niger, Oyo, Plateau, Sokoto and Taraba GOVERNORSHIP CASES States each filed 1 appeal against the decision It will be recollected that sixty-seven petitions of the Governorship Election Tribunals at the arose from 26 States against the return of gover- various Divisions of the Court of Appeal. nors after the March 9, 2019 Governorship Elec- tions. The twenty-six governorship Election Tri-

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 165 Table 6.1: Summary of Court of Appeal Decision by States 2019 2015

STATES TOTAL NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO OF AP- APPEAL APPEAL STRUCK APPEALS APPEALS APPEAL PEAL ALLOWED DISMISSED OUT DISMISSED STRUCK OUT ABIA 1 1 1 1

ADAMAWA 1 1

AKWA-IBOM 1 1 1 1

BAUCHI 1 1

BENUE 1 1 1 1

CROSS RIVER 1 1

DELTA 1 1 2 2

EBONYI 1 1 1 1

GOMBE 3 1 2

ENUGU 1 1

IMO 3 3 1 1

KADUNA 1 1 1 1

KEBBI 1 1

LAGOS 2 2 1 1

NIGER 1 1

KANO 1 1

KATSINA 1 1

NASARAWA 2 2

OGUN 5 4 1 3 3

OYO 1 1

RIVERS 1 1

PLATEAU 1 1

SOKOTO 1 1

TARABA 1 1 1 1

YOBE 1 1

ZAMFARA 1 1

TOTAL 28 27 1 22 2 19 1

166 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Table 6.2: Summary of Court Decision on Appeals JUDGEMENT APPEALS Dismissed 27 Struck out 1 TOTAL 28

Fig.6. 1: Bar chart representation showing analysis of the Court of Appeal judgement on Appeals from the Election Petition Tribunal

6.2 Comparative Analysis of the Appeals in 2019 were dismissed while 86.4% were dis- filed at the Court of Appeal in 2015 and missed in 2015. 9.1 of the appeals filed in 2015 2019 were allowed while none was allowed in 2019. In comparing the decision of the Courts of Ap- 4.5% of the appeals filed in 2015 were struck out peal in 2015 and 2019, 96.4% of the appeals filed while 3.6% were dismissed in 2019.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 167 Figure 6.2 Bar Chat Representation Showing Comparative Analysis of Judgement in 2015 and 2019

6.3 Appeals filed at the Supreme Court peal, petitioners went on to file appeals at the Supreme Court. KDI assessed 20 appeals. It was In comparing the decision of the Courts of Ap- gathered that the 20 appeals emanated from 19 peal in 2015 and 2019, 96.4% of the appeals States. Out of the 20 appeals assessed, 19 have filed in 2019 were dismissed while 86.4% were were dismissed by the Supreme Court while 1 dismissed in 2015. 9.1 of the appeals filed in of them was allowed – Imo State. As at the time 2015 were allowed while none was allowed in of writing this report, KDI is yet to see the details 2019. 4.5% of the appeals filed in 2015 were of the decision of the Court and so was not able struck out while 3.6% were dismissed in 2019. to determine the reasoning behind the decision Disgruntled by the decision of the Court of Ap- of the apex court.

TABLE 6.3: SUMMARY OF SUPREME COURT DECISION BY STATES TOTAL NO OF APPEAL APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Allowed at FILED AT THE SUPREME AT THE SUPREME the Supreme Court S/N STATES COURT COURT 2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019

1 ABIA 1 1 0 1 1 0

2 ADAMAWA 0 1 0 1 1 0

3 AKWA-IBOM 1 1 0 1 1 0

4 BAUCHI 0 1 0 1 0 0

168 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) 5 BENUE 1 1 1 1 0 0

7 DELTA 2 1 2 1 0 0

8 EBONYI 1 1 1 1 0 0

9 GOMBE 1 0 1 0 0 0

11 IMO 1 1 1 0 0 1

12 KADUNA 0 1 0 1 0 0

13 KEBBI 1 0 1 0 0 0

14 LAGOS 1 2 1 2 0 0 15 NIGER 0 1 0 1 0 0 16 KANO 0 1 0 1 0 0 17 KATSINA 0 1 0 1 0 0 18 NASARAWA 0 1 0 1 0 0 19 OGUN 2 1 1 1 1 0

20 OYO 1 1 1 1 0 0

21 RIVERS 1 0 0 0 1 0 22 PLATEAU 0 1 0 1 0 0 23 SOKOTO 0 1 0 1 0 0 24 TARABA 1 1 1 1 0 0 25 YOBE 1 0 1 0 0 0 26 ZAMFARA 1 0 1 0 0 0

TOTAL 17 20 13 19 4 1

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 169 Fig.6. 3: Bar chart representation showing analysis of the Supreme Court judgement on Appeals from the Court of Appeal

6.4 Comparative Analysis of the Appeals 20 appeals were filed in 2019. Of the 17 appeals filed at the Supreme Court in 2015 and filed in 2019, 13 were dismissed while 4 were 2019 allowed. Out of the 20 appeals filed at the Su- Comparative analysis showed that 17 appeals preme Court in 2019, 19 were dismissed while were filed at the Supreme Court in 2015 while 1 was allowed.

Fig.6.4: Bar chart representation showing Comparative analysis of the Supreme Court judgement from 2015 and 2019

170 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) DISMISSED

DISMISSED

SUPREME COURT

DECISION REACHED

TORAL ACTTORAL

REASON(S)

LACK OF MERIT OF LACK

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

ABUSE OF COURTABUSE PROCESSOF

THE THE THE COURT HELD THAT

COURT DISMISSED APPEAL FOR COURT DISMISSED APPEAL FOR

SONING OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS SONING TRIBUNAL THE OF WAS

ALLEGATIONS OF OVER-VOTING OVER-VOTING OF ALLEGATIONS

NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE THE NON-COMPLIANCE TO INEC

EVIDENCE TO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEIR CASE

THE COURT HELD THAT THE REATHE THAT COURTTHE HELD

APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE HIS PROVE HIS TO APPELLANT FAILED

UNQUESTIONABLE, AND THAT THE THE UNQUESTIONABLE, THAT AND

ELECTION ELECTHE GUIDELINE AND

APPELLANT DID NOT LEAD CREDIBLE LEAD CREDIBLE APPELLANT NOT DID

COURT OF APPEAL OF COURT

DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

APC

INEC

UEL, PDP UEL,

RESPON

PRESIDENT PRESIDENT

NAME OF NAME OF

AHMADU & & AHMADU

INEC OKEZIE OKEZIE INEC BUHARI, APC BUHARI,

PDP, UMARU UMARU PDP,

MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD

IKPEAZU, PDP IKPEAZU,

BUHARI/ INEC/ INEC/ BUHARI/

MUHAMMADU MUHAMMADU

DENT/PARTY

UDOM EMMAN

PRESIDENTIAL APPEALS

GOVERNORSHIP APPEALS

HDP

APC

APGA

PARTY

NAME OF NAME OF

TABLE 6.4: SUMMARY OF CASES OF SUMMARY APPEALED 6.4: TABLE

ALHAJI ATIKU ALHAJI ATIKU

APPELANT/

NSIMA EKERE, EKERE, NSIMA

DR ALEX OTTI, ALEX OTTI, DR

ABUBAKAR, PDP

CHIEF AMBROSE CHIEF AMBROSE

ALBERT OWURU/

APPEAL APPEAL

GOV/2/19

NUMBER

GOV/211/19

GOV/426/19

CA/OW/EPT/

CA/OW/NAEA/

CA/YL/EPT/AD/

TOTAL

APPEALS

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

ABIA

STATES

ADAMAWA

AKWA-IBOM

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 171 DISMISSED

DISMISSED

SUPREME COURT

DECISION REACHED

APPEAL.

DISMISSED

REASON(S)

PROSECUTION

THE CASE LACK MERIT CASE LACK THE

EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE HIS TO EVIDENCE

TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF OF WANT DISMISSED BE FOR TO

APPEAL FOR LACKING IN MERIT. APPEAL IN LACKING FOR

APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVIDE APPELLANTNOT COULD

THE APPEAL FAILS AND IS HEREBY HEREBY IS AND APPEALTHE FAILS

THE COURT FIND NO MERIT IN THE THE COURTMERIT THE IN FIND NO

THE APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED COURT DISMISSED APPELLATE THE

ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE THE THE ON APPEL GROUNDS THAT

FOR WHICH THE APPEAL WAS THE WHICHFOR LIABLE APPEAL WAS

LANTS’ BRIEF WAS FILED OUT OF TIME TIME FILED OF OUT WAS BRIEF LANTS’

COURT OF APPEAL OF COURT

DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

APPEAL DISMISSED APPEAL DISMISSED

APPEAL DISMISSED

COURT UPHELD THE

WITH COST OF 100000 OF WITH COST

DECISION OF THE EPT. THE DECISION OF

APPEAL DISMISSED AND APPEAL DISMISSED AND

PDP)

WOU

(PDP)

UMAHI

NWAEZE NWAEZE

TOM/PDP

ORS(BALA ORS(BALA

INEC, PDP, PDP, INEC,

MANAGER MANAGER

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF AND INEC

PDP & INEC & PDP

SAMUEL SAMUEL OR

BEEN AYADE, BEEN AYADE,

JAMES EBIOJAMES

ENGR. DAVID DAVID ENGR.

MUHAMMED/

THUR OKOWA

CRATIC PARTY PARTY CRATIC

DENT/PARTY

PEOPLE DEMO

DR. IFEANYI AR DR.

PARTY

JIME/APC

ANOR/ APC ANOR/

NAME OF NAME OF

ABDULLAHI

EMMANUEL EMMANUEL

ALL PEOPLE PEOPLE ALL

MOHAMMED MOHAMMED USANIUSANI USANIUSANI ARUA AGHA

CHIEF GREAT CHIEF GREAT

APPELANT/

CLAIMED APC

ABUBAKAR AND

PDM, CHIEF AJA PDM,

CONGRESS (APCCONGRESS

OVEDJEOGBORU

417

2019

CA/E/

APPEAL APPEAL

NUMBER CA/B/EPT/

GOV/57/20

CA/C/NAEA/

CA/J/EPT/BH/

GOV/01/2019

CA/MKD/EPT/

GOV/

EAPP/13/2019

GOV/414/2019

TOTAL

APPEALS

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

DELTA

BENUE

BAUCHI

EBONYI

STATES

CROSS RIVER

S/N

172 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) -

DISMISSED

APPEAL ALLOWED

SUPREME COURT

DECISION REACHED

REASON(S)

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

THE APPEAL THE MERIT. LACKED

ELECTORAL IRREGULARITIES

COURT DISMISSED APPEAL FOR

OF MASSIVE RIGGING AND OTHER RIGGING OTHER AND MASSIVE OF

UNABLE TO PROVE HIS ALLEGATIONS PROVE ALLEGATIONS HIS TO UNABLE

COURT OF APPEAL OF COURT

DECISION

WAS AFFIRMED. WAS

APPEAL DISMISSED

JUDGMENT TRIBUNAL

APPEAL DISMISSED. THE APPEAL THE DISMISSED.

INEC

INEC.

DUJE

EMEKA

1.INEC

3. APC

AND INECAND

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

INEC & ORS & INEC

UMAR GAN UMAR

EMEKA IHEDI

2. ABDULLAHI ABDULLAHI 2.

IHEDIOHA /PDP IHEDIOHA /PDP

OHA /PDP AND /PDP AND OHA

DENT/PARTY

/AA

YUSUF YUSUF

IFEANYI IFEANYI

PARTY

MA /APC

NAME OF NAME OF

ANOR /PDP

APPELANT/

1. ABBA KABIR ABBA KABIR 1.

ISAH MOHAMISAH

MED ASHIRU & MED ASHIRU &

HOPE UZODIN

UCHE NWAOSU UCHE NWAOSU

OCRATIC PARTY PARTY OCRATIC

ARARUME /APGA

2. PEOPLE’S DEM PEOPLE’S 2.

IM/05/19 785/2019

GOV/

APPEAL APPEAL

GOV/3/19

CA/K/EPT/ NUMBER

CA/EK/EPT/

CA/OW/EPT/

CA/OW/GOV/

GOC/48/2019

CA/A/ EPT/GOV

TOTAL

APPEALS

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

IMO

KANO

STATES

KADUNA

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 173 DISMISSED

DISMISSED

SUPREME COURT

DECISION REACHED

MERITS

THEIR CASE

REASON(S)

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

LACK OF STRONG OF LACK EVIDENCE

COURT DISMISSED APPEAL FOR

LANTS WERE UNABLE TO PROVE PROVE TO WERE UNABLE LANTS

THE COURT HELD THAT THE APPELTHE THAT COURTTHE HELD

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACKING IN APPEAL DISMISSED IN LACKING FOR

COURT OF APPEAL OF COURT

DISMISSED

DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

MASARI

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

AUDUSULE

AUDU SULE AUDU

AMINU BELLO BELLO AMINU

WO-OLU , APC , WO-OLU

BABAJIDE SAN

ENGNR. ALHAJI ENGNR.

DENT/PARTY

ENGNR. ALHAJI ENGNR.

PARTY

IFAGBEMI IFAGBEMI

SALIS, AD SALIS,

LADO PDP

NAME OF NAME OF

APPELANT/

MR. LABARAN LABARAN MR.

MAKU & ANOR & MAKU

AWAMARIDI, LP AWAMARIDI,

CHIEF OWOLABI

SENATOR YAKUBU YAKUBU SENATOR

2019

APPEAL APPEAL

CA/K/EPT/

NUMBER

GOV/55/19

CA/MK/EP/

GOV/10/19

CA/MK/EP/

GOV/

TOTAL

APPEALS

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

LAGOS

KATSINA

STATES

NASARAWA

S/N

174 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) DISMISSED

DISMISSED

SUPREME COURT

DECISION REACHED

REASON(S)

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

COURT LACKED JURISDICTIONCOURT LACKED

COURT DISMISSED APPEAL FOR COURT DISMISSED APPEAL FOR

COURT OF APPEAL OF COURT

DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

WENT TO WENT TO SUPREME

APPEAL DISMISSED

APPEAL NOT ALLOWED ALLOWED APPEAL NOT

ORS

ABUBAKAR

RESPON

BELLO, APC BELLO,

NAME OF NAME OF

APC & 3 ORS 3 & APC

ABIODUN & 3 3 ABIODUN & INEC & 2 ORS 2 & INEC

ABIODUN & 3 3 ABIODUN &

PRINCE DAPO PRINCE DAPO

DENT/PARTY

PDP

ANOR

PARTY

& ANOR &

NAME OF NAME OF

CHIEF (MRS) CHIEF (MRS)

SANYAOLU & & SANYAOLU

UMAR NASKO, NASKO, UMAR

APPELANT/

MODUPE OPLA MODUPE OPLA

ADEKUNLE AB

MODUPE OPLA MODUPE OPLA

LABOUR PARTY & & LABOUR PARTY

DULKABIR (APM) DULKABIR (APM)

APPEAL APPEAL

NUMBER

GOV/06/2019

GOV/07/2019

GOV/20/2019

GOV/M.9/2019

CA/1B/EPT/OG/

TOTAL

APPEALS

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

NIGER

OGUN

STATES

S/N

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 175 DISMISSED

DISMISSED

SUPREME COURT

DECISION REACHED

PETITIONER

WITHDRAWN

REASON(S)

LACKING IN MERIT IN LACKING

RAISED IN ITS PETITION ITS RAISED IN

COURT DISMISSED APPEAL FOR COURT DISMISSED APPEAL FOR

DID NOT PROPERLY ACCESS THE THE ACCESS PROPERLY NOT DID

MERIT, ALSO UNABLE TO PROVE PROVE TO ALSO UNABLE MERIT,

MINED THAT THE THE LOWER COURT MINED THAT

INCOMPETENT AND LACKING IN INCOMPETENT IN LACKING AND

DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY

ALLEGATIONS OF IRREGULARITIES OF ALLEGATIONS

JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUDGMENT TRIBUNAL THE OF WAS

UPHELD. COURT HOWEVER DETERUPHELD.

COURT OF APPEAL OF COURT

UPHELD

DECISION

STRUCK OUT

APPEAL DISMISSED

BUNAL JUDGEMENT BUNAL JUDGEMENT

APPEAL UPHELD/TRI

ORS

PDP

SIMON SIMON

RESPON

NAME OF NAME OF

TAMBUWAL, TAMBUWAL,

ABIODUN & ABIODUN &

PRINCE DAPO PRINCE DAPO

LALONG, APC LALONG,

SEYI MAKINDE, MAKINDE, SEYI

AMINU WAZIRI WAZIRI AMINU

DENT/PARTY

DARIUS ISHAKU, ISHAKU, DARIUS

ANOR

PARTY

BU., APC BU.,

NAME OF NAME OF

ALIYU, APC ALIYU,

CHIEF (MRS) CHIEF (MRS)

SANYAOLU & & SANYAOLU

HON. AHMED AHMED HON.

APPELANT/

MODUPEOPLA

AH USENI, PDP USENI, AH

APC, DANLADI APC,

ADEBAYO ADELA ADEBAYO SENATOR JEREMI SENATOR

088

2010

CA/A/

APPEAL APPEAL

CA/S/EPT/

NUMBER

GOV/26/19

GOV/30/19

SC.

CA/J/EPT/PL/

EPT/934/2019

CA/IB/EPT/OY/

GOV/409/2019

TOTAL

APPEALS

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF

OYO

TARABA

STATES

SOKOTO

PLATEAU

S/N

176 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) PART RECOMMENDATIONS SEVEN

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 177 RECOMMENDATIONS It came into the fore during information Having monitored the 2019 Election Petition gathering that one of the reasons for the Tribunal in 36 States and the Federal Capital high number of petitions grounded on Territory and having assessed the conducts of non-compliance with the electoral Act by the tribunals and made comparative analysis INEC in conducting the elections was be- with the cases arising from the 2015 general cause of the ineptitude of some INEC Ad- elections, some issues which require immediate Hoc staff in the conduct of the elections. and long term measures for improvement were Documentations are usually missed up. identified. The recommendations proffered to The results at the collation centre and the help drive these improvements are segmented polling units are sometimes missed up, and based on Institutions: this would usually destabilize a petitioner’s case at the Tribunal. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL • INEC is enjoined to certify as true COMMISSION (INEC) copies all documents required by the • There is a need to Improve the Elec- agency timely and free of charge. It was toral process so that there would be argued that INEC staff withholds or delays fewer petitions filed.The number of certifying documents required by peti- petitions filed against the general election tioners for prosecuting their matter at the of February and March 2019 increased by tribunal. It was also argued that the #10.00 19.8% from the previous election-year. 677 (ten naira) charged for each page of the petitions were filed in the 2015 general document certified by INEC could run into election, while 811 petitions were filed in millions, and sometimes the staff uses the the 2019 general election. In determining opportunity to extort money from the pe- what could be responsible for the increase, titioners. It was suggested that INEC should it is believed that the 2019 elections was have its staff certify all copies of election fraught with corruption; aside the fact that results given to Party Agents at the polling almost all the national and international Units; this it is believed would reduce to the observers at the 2019 general elections had barest minimum, if not totally eradicate the stated that there were a lot of irregularities issue of INEC issuing different results from during that election that require improve- their copy to Party Agents. ment. • There is a need for INEC to begin to do more in training its Ad-Hoc Staff.

178 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) THE JUDICIARY of the 180 days. The sustainability of this is in question and there is a need to begin to • Create a transition system to help trans- look into alternatives to empanelling Elec- fer cases before Judges, at least a month tion Tribunals with serving Judges. Alterna- before they are dispatch to the various tives include: election petition tribunals. Judicial Of- • Employ retired judges and senior law- ficers are drafted from their duty posts to yers to empanel elections tribunals. This empanel Election Tribunals for 180 days. All will ensure that the serving judges would the cases before their Lordships in the reg- be left to sit on their regular cases without ular courts stay pending for the 180 days. putting the wheel of justice on hold for 180 Delay could sometimes amount to injustice. days The transition system will help the involved • For effective carriage of justice in elec- judges return the sensitive cases before tion petition cases, specially trained them to the assigning officer for re-assign- Judges are required to man the election ment or another judge could be appointed tribunals. A few days training is not enough. to sit over his court while he is away on na- Whether serving or retired, in-depth knowl- tional assignment. In order for this to work; edge of the extant laws in relation to elec- • There is a need to employ more judges. tions is highly important to effectively carry More judges would ensure that there is out their duties as true umpires in the reso- a pool to be drawn from without leav- lution of election disputes. ing the regular courts. The tribunals sit • There is a need to expand the number for an average of 11 (eleven) hours in a day. of days within the 180 days that the Once some tribunals sit at 8:00am in the petitioners have to prove their case. It morning, they do not rise until between must be noted that the petitioner has only 7:00 and 9:00pm in the evening with a break 10 (ten) days, out of the Constitutional 180 of about 1 hour in-between. Having sat for days, within which to present his case and such long hours and for 180 days and hav- call all his witnesses. Analysis showed that ing lived such a confined life for those num- the 67 (sixty-seven) governorship cases as- bers of days, emotional and mental fatigue sessed, none, safe one was successful at the is bound to set in. it must be noted that tribunal. Analysis done on the reasons ad- these same judges return to their regular duced for dismissing petitions showed that courts, daily routines and the backlog pile inability to establish/proof cases carried the of cases awaiting them after the expiration highest percentage in both 2015 and 2019.

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 179 The limited time within which to prove cases a need to begin to look into alternatives to was identified as one of the reasons petition- empanelling Election Tribunals with serving ers failed at the Tribunals. Time constrained Judges. Alternatives include: preclude the petitioners who should bring • Electoral Court: The creation of an Elector- witnesses for oral evidence to establish their al Court will ensure that the courts are pre- cases from doing so thoroughly. The burden sided over by Judges employed and special- of proving a case is greatly tilted to the peti- ly trained in election petition adjudication; tioner and it is not practical to expect him to thereby ensuring that judicial officers draft- effectively dislodge the burden within the ed to empanel the Election Tribunals are not time limit granted by law. 10 days granted taken off their regular duties for 180 days. could be expanded to 20 – 25 days to allow This court will sit over pre and post-election more time for the petitioner to do justice to matters, as well as electoral offences. It could his case. be argued that the Electoral Courts would • There is a need to consider alternatives only be busy in the election-years, but with to Election Tribunal Panels: Judicial Of- the responsibilities of handling pre and ficers are drafted from their duty post to post-election matters and electoral offenc- empanel Election Tribunals for 180 days. All es related cases, it could be defended that the cases before their Lordships in their reg- the courts will be busy. Some have argued ular courts stay pending for the 180 days. that Electoral Courts is needed in line with The tribunals sit for an average of 10 (ten) the electoral offences commission. Since to 13 (thirteen) hours in a day. Once some the commission is not a court but a pros- tribunals sit at 8:00am in the morning, they ecuting and investigating agency, charging do not rise until between 7:00 and 9:00pm offenders before the special election court in the evening with a break of about 1 hour will speed up the will of justice. in-between. Having sat for such long hours • Constitutional Court: The idea of a consti- and for 180 days and having lived such a con- tutional court, as contained in the 1989 Con- fined life for those numbers of days, emo- stitution should be revisited. A court derives tional and mental fatigue is bound to set its powers and functions from its enabling in. it must be noted that these same judges law. Once the enabling law states the cases return to their regular courts, daily routines that should be heard by the Constitutional and the backlog pile of cases awaiting them courts, it would hear such cases as consti- after the expiration of the 180 days. The sus- tutional matters, electoral matters, such as tainability of this is in question and there is pre and post-election matters, in addition to

180 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) electoral offences matters. pellate court had within which to review all • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): decisions of the Election Tribunals that had as alternative to Election Tribunal, parties been appealed against. Although 27 gov- should begin to explore Alternative Dispute ernorship appeals were filed at the various Resolution in resolving electoral disputes divisions of the Court of Appeal, there were arising from elections. It was argued that other decisions emanating from the Sena- there must be sincerity of purpose for ADR torial, Federal and States Constituency Elec- to work. All the parties involved must be tion Tribunals. It is worth noting that every in agreement as ADR is a voluntary option. one of the Court of Appeal Division serviced However, if parties are open to resolving dif- more than one State. For example, the Kadu- ferences, it could be employed in intra-par- na Division of the Court of Appeal attended ty disputes. KDI noted that Independent to appeals from Kaduna, Kano and Adama- National Electoral Commission currently wa Election Tribunals. The Ibadan Division has a unit operating ADR for the resolution catered to Oyo and Ogun States’ Election of grievances arising from electoral issues. Tribunals. It must also be noted that, like the It was noted further that in order for it to Tribunals, all other appeals emanating from work effectively, there is a need to move the the regular courts are set aside for the 60 unit from INEC and allow it to stand as an days in order to attend to election appeals. independent organ. The independence of Information gathered also showed that out- the ADR unit will to a certain extent guar- side of the election dispute resolution pe- antee the confidence of political stakehold- riod, the Court of Appeal Divisions are still ers in the ADR process. Where a party has overburdened, having to service cases em- accused INEC of irregularity in an election, anating from two or three States at a time. and brought the matter before the ADR, a • A call is made for the true indepen- component of INEC, the independence of dence of the Judiciary. For as long as the the panel sitting on the matter will be taint- judiciary is not financially autonomous from ed. INEC cannot be seeing to be an umpire the states to the federal level and the stake- in its own course. holders and electorates keep perceiving the • Consideration should be given to creat- financial dependence of the judiciary on ing more Court of Appeal Divisions. Like the executive, it would always be hard to the Tribunal, information gathered showed convince them that justice is not sold and that the Court of Appeal was overstretched bought in election matters. in the course of the 60 (sixty) days the ap- • Stenographers/Recorders/Transcrib-

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 181 ers: Judges still personally employ the clusion: Female and Persons with Disabili- long-handwriting skill in taking down ty representation on both the panel and as notes in the Nigerian courts. Proceedings secretaries to the tribunals was low. It could in courts/tribunals can only move as fast as be argued that there is no female at the Bar the hand of the judges. Stenographers, re- and on the Bench; both male and female are corders and transcribers are needed to help regarded as “Gentlemen of the Bar and the reduce the burden of work on the judges in Bench”. Gender and PWD inclusion demand courts and the election tribunals alike. that more female and persons living with • Interpreter – The language of the court/ disability be elevated to the Bench. tribunal is English and as such, the business • Heavy penalty should be imposed on of the tribunals is conducted in English lan- lawyers and petitioners who bring friv- guage. The unlettered indigents are cheat- olous cases before the Tribunal: Filing ed out of understanding the Tribunals’ pro- petition/ rejection of electoral result has ceedings and always had to rely on hear-say become a cultural endemic. There is a need in order to comprehend. Transparency de- for cultural reorientation for the Nigerian mands that interpreter be provided for the citizenry. Even where it is obvious that the citizenry in the local language of the juris- petitioner did not have a valid case, they still diction in which the tribunal was situated. go to the Tribunal, overburdening the sys- In cases where interpreters are provided, tem. Although the principle of fair hearing is they are not trained in the art of interpre- that no matter how frivolous a petition/case tations. They were persons who could com- is, it must be heard, the legal system needs municate fairly in both the English and the to start penalizing persons and legal prac- local language in question and have been titioners who file frivolous cases heavily for requested to help so that the will of justice deterrence purposes. The Tribunals need to could be oiled in such situations. Persons ensure that the fines are punitive in nature. with Disability mainstreaming and inclusion also require that interpreters/ skilled sign THE LEGISLATURE language persons be employed to provide • For healthy electoral process, there is a interpretation for persons with hearing im- need to amend the constitution to re- pairment. There is a need to have properly move the loose powers given to INEC trained interpreters and sign-language ex- to register political parties and peg the perts in the Tribunals. number of political parties that could • Gender and PWD Streamlining and In- be registered. Stakeholders identified

182 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) the large number of political parties that are done without belaboring or over- participated in the 2019 general elections burdening the election tribunals. as a contributory factor to the increase in • Incumbent elected officers are perceived to the number of petitions filed. It was sug- take advantage of state resources in prose- gested that a good number of the already cuting election cases; and this does not au- registered party ought to be de-registered. gur well with the electorate. In order to dis- While some argued that this would amount pel this perception, consideration should to shrinking the political space and infringe be given to amending the laws to move on the rights of the citizens to form political the timetable of INEC up to create more alliances, others believed that the political time between the election and the in- parties ought to meet certain criteria before auguration of the returned candidates; they are allowed on the ballots for presiden- this would leave more time for the Election tial and governorship election. Tribunals to resolve all electoral disputes • Section 68 of the Electoral Act, 2010 pro- with less burden of time limit. It will also en- vides that the decision of the returning of- sure that parties do not have the opportu- ficer as regards the declaration of scores nity to expend state resources on personal of candidates and the return of a candidate disputes at the election tribunals. shall be final. Such decision can only be re- • Amend the laws to allow the burden of viewed by a tribunal or court in an election proof to swing amongst the petition- petition proceeding. What this means is that ers, the respondents and INEC. While in a situations where certain errors could the petitioner should prove his claim on the be administratively corrected, it cannot be preponderance of probability, INEC should done once a returning officer had made the prove that the elections were in actual fact declaration.Politicians and corrupt INEC staff conducted in compliance with the relevant have been known to rely on this section of electoral laws; and that the elections were the Electoral Act to circumvent the electoral free and fair. There are also certain facts that process thereby increasing the number of are within the knowledge of the respon- petitions at the tribunal. The slogan is re- dent, such as where the petitioner alleges ported as “declare us the winner and we will that the respondent fed wrong informa- go and slug it out in court ”It is proposed tion to INEC in order to qualify to contest that this section of the law is amended an election, and the petitioner was able to so that certain errors which could be prove this, the burden of proving that the corrected at the administrative level information was indeed correct should shift

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 183 to the respondent. a blanket expansion of time, the number of • There is a need to amend the laws to ex- days could be expanded by thirty days to pand the 180 days within which to hear make up 210 days, or in the alternative, election petition matters by the Tri- • In order to reduce the number of petitions bunals. Analysis showed that all Tribunals filed at the Election Tribunal it was canvassed completed their tasks within the stipulated that there is a need to amend the laws to time; however, some counsel complain that make Alternative Dispute Resolution tribunals did not have enough time to eval- (ADR) part of the electoral adjudica- uate all the documentary evidence placed tion process. Election petitions would only before them, while others complain that tri- be accepted by the Tribunal after ADR has bunals did not take all their witnesses. It was failed. This, it was argued would ensure that found that in the past when time limit was most of the petitions brought before the not enforced, the tribunal had enough time election Tribunal would have been resolved to do thorough jobs of evaluating evidence at the ADR stage, thereby decongesting the presented to the tribunal and ensuring sub- Election Petition Tribunals. stantial justice is carried out in all election • A call for the review of the Electoral Act petition matters before an election tribu- to expand the grounds upon which a nal. The decision of the courts that took the petition may be filed was made. It was governorship election of the seven states argued that there is a need to amend the (Anambra, Bayelsa,Edo, Ekiti, Kogi, Ondo and electoral act to remove the grounds upon Osun) off the general election circle were which a petition may be filed at the Elec- had before the strict adherence to the 180 tion Tribunal, this it is said because certain days. Since the inception of strict compli- important grounds are not included in the ance to the 180 days’ time limit, there has laws. Some however agreed that rather than not been another case where the petitioner remove the grounds, it is better to expand was able to prove their case and win their the grounds. The expanded grounds will sits through the decisions of the courts. It is include violence in elections. It is easier to worthy of note that all the pre-tribunal ac- prove violence than substantial non-com- tivities, such as, the 14 or 21 days that the pliance with the extant laws – substantial Respondent has for a Reply and the 7 days being the operative word. within which the Petitioner has to respond • There is a need to review the Electoral Act to the Respondent’s Reply, are woven into to back the use of technology in voting the 180 days. While we do not advocate for to help track discrepancies in elections.

184 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) Although some argued that the use of tech- organizations need to begin to do more in nology in elections could be manipulated, sensitizing, educating and enlightening the thereby perpetuating discrepancies; many citizenry on the electoral system. Once the believe that political will and sincerity of amended electoral Act has been signed to purpose will ensure that the use of technol- law, the content ought to be disseminated ogy is a success. to the people because information is key. • Also in urgent need of review is, the • There is a need for the civil society orga- Electoral Procedure Law to relax the nizations to begin to work with political stringent provisions of the laws. A case parties and monitor their internal party is made for the Tribunals to decide petitions democracy and report them. All the rules on the substantive issues placed before required to make Nigerian politics sane and them, rather than look at technical fault of lead to good democratic governance are the Petitioners. Justice, it is said must not contained in the constitution of the political only be served but must be seen to have parties. The parties need to observe these been served. Where decisions are made rules; and once they realize that they are be- based on technical grounds while neglect- ing monitored and reported, the likelihood ing the substantive issues, the general per- of observance will be high. ception of the populace is that justice has • In a society such as Nigeria, accepting Alter- not been served whenever judgment is native Dispute Resolution in tackling elec- based on technicalities. toral grievances could be close to impossi- ble. First, ADR has to be acceptable to all the THE EXECUTIVE political stakeholders; the people, the poli- • There is a need to sign the amended ticians, the godfathers and all other politi- Electoral Act for the purposes of imple- cal allies. In order tomake this happen, the menting all the electoral reforms con- confidence of the political stakehold- tained therein. The legislature is called ers must be built in the effectiveness of upon to speed up the process of amend- ADR. There would also be need for mas- ment so that it could be transferred as soon sive sensitization and engagement with as possible to the presidency for assent. political parties on ADR.

CIVIL SOCIETY POLITICAL PARTY • Amended electoral act needs to be dis- • In order for Nigeria Democracy to seminated to the people. The civil society thrive, the political parties must begin

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 185 to work on their Internal Party Democ- train their agents on the content of the racy: Analysis showed that there were only electoral act and what is required of 5 parties that went to the tribunals in 2015 them at the polling Units and the colla- and in 2019. A large number of the other tion centers. Information gathered showed political parties went to the tribunals with that Petitions are sometimes lost because only one or two petitions throughout the 36 the party agents failed in their duties on States and the FCT in both 2015 and 2019. the day of the elections. If they were trained The bulk of the petitions could be traced to on what the laws says their duties are and persons and parties that were birthed by what to look out for, a number of the peti- persons who were forced out of the larger tions may have even been avoided, as the parties as a result of intra-party primaries elections would have been considered free, and disagreements. There were a lot of fra- fair and conducted in accordance with the cas and intra-party crises before and during extant laws. party primaries in 2019. There were a large • There has to be punishment for compro- number of defections from one party to the mised and or erring Returning Officers. other and cross-party carpeting. It is import- Information gathered showed that some ant that the political parties get their inter- petitions arose from the errors of some Re- nal democracy right in order that sanity may turning Officers, yet these sets of people go prevail in the Nigerian polity. unpunished, leaving INEC and the Judiciary • Of a great necessity, Political parties must to clean up after them.

186 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) ANNEX A filed in some geo-political zones in 2019, SUCCESS STORIES: as opposed to the number of petitions that • KDI successfully trained and deployed 37 were filed in 2015, KDI saw the need to hold monitors across 36 states and F.C.T.The level stakeholders meeting in those zones in or- of understanding and knowledge of partic- der to harvest the reasons why filing of pe- ipants increased from 65% to 87%. The per- titions shot up. centage increase of the participants is aver- agely 22% CHALLENGES: • KDI successfully organized a review meet- • Due to the lateness in the commencement ing in Ibadan, Oyo state and Stakeholders’ of the project, monitors were not able to forumacross the three selected geo-political observe all that is required of them. A good zones in Nigeria. Through this, KDI was able number of the tribunals either had given to reach out to relevant stakeholders and judgment or had adjourned for the delivery had their view on electoral and judicial re- of judgment. This also required monitors forms to follow the cases that were going or had • The Stakeholders’ forum increased the gone to the Court of Appeal in order to have awareness of relevant Civil Society Organi- comprehensive monitoring and reporting. zations on the need to advocate for trans- • Almost all the Tribunal Secretaries request- parency in electoral and judicial system. ed for letter of introduction/ Directives from the Court of Appeal before they handed out LESSONS LEARNED information or any form of documentation; • Early commencement of the project will this made sourcing and obtaining accurate ensure effective monitoring, prompt and ro- information by the monitors very difficult. bust reporting. • With the letter of permission and introduc- • Prompt permission and letter of introduction from the Court of Appeal in hand, KDI tion by the Court of Appeal help fast track went back to the Tribunals. Unfortunately, obtaining information from the Secretaries most of the Tribunal secretariats had shut to the Tribunals. down, and Secretaries returned to their var- • The sub-grant training was an eye-opener. ious stations; which downplayed the effec- KDI saw reasons to becommitted to good tiveness and usefulness of the letter in ob- governance and contribute her own quota taining information. to the democratic development of Nigeria. • There was a last-minute change in the ven- • Having identified that more petitions were ue for the delivery of judgment by the Tribu-

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 187 nal in the Imo State Governorship Election Reply Brief. Petition; which made monitoring exercises • Consolidation: Consolidation of actions/ difficult for the Imo State Election Tribunal consolidated petitions is a process whereby Monitor. two or more actions pending in the same court are by order of court joined and tried ANNEX B together at the same time. Definition of Terms • Corroborate: Confirmation or give support • Adjournment: postponement of the hear- to the decision of the lower court. ing of a case, either to a definite future date • Empanel: Constitution of a panel. Selection or indefinitely – sine die of a group of judicial officers for jury duty. • Adjudicate: act as a judge in a matter of or • Lacuna: A gap in the laws. a formal judgment in a disputed matter • Objection: an objection is a formal pro- • Appellant: refers to the party who is not test raised in court during a trial to disal- satisfied with the judgment of the Election low a witness’s testimony or other evidence Petition Tribunal and has gone further to which would be in violation of the rules of appeal, either to the Court of Appeal or the evidence or other procedural law Supreme Court. An appellant could be the • Onus of proof: burden, duty or responsibil- Petitioner or the Respondent. ity to prove a point • Appellate Court: is any court empowered • Petitioner: refers to the party who peti- to hear an appeal from a lower court. in the tioned the Court to review a case. case of election matters in Nigeria, the ap- • Pretrial Conference: is a meeting of the pellate courts are the Court of Appeal and parties to a case conducted prior to trial. the Supreme Court. The term pretrial conference is used inter- • Appellate Jurisdiction: is the power of the changeably with the term pretrial hearing. appellate court to review, amend, uphold or • Recuse: this occurs where a judge excuses overrule decisions of the lower court. himself/herself as unqualified to perform • Apex Court: Is the highest court of the land; his/her judicial duties because of possible in the case of Nigeria, the Supreme Court. lack of impartiality • Brief: Is a written legal document which • Respondent: refers to the party being sued lays out the argument of either party to a or tried. case. It contains points and authorities for • Return: is the declaration by a Returning the purpose of swaying the judge in their Officer of a candidate in an election under favor. It could be a Brief of Argument or a the Electoral Act as being the winner of that

188 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) election vides legal advice to clients in one or more • Secretary: He/she is in charge of the regis- areas of law. He/she is otherwise referred to try of the Election Tribunal as a barrister, attorney or counsel. • Solicitor: A solicitor is a lawyer that pro-

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 189 ANNEX C: Election Petition Tribunal Monitors Deployment Sheet S/N NAME STATE EMAIL PHONE MONITORS NUMBER CODE

1 SAM EKWURIBE ABIA [email protected] 07034694070 KDI/EPT/006 2 IBRAHIM MOHAMMED ADAMAWA [email protected] 08068718711 KDI/EPT/007 IBRAHIM 3 CAROLINE GORDIAN AK- [email protected] 7069776690 KDI/EPT/008 WA-IBOM 4 EZEAGWU DEBORAH ANAMBRA [email protected] 08165521554 KDI/EPT/009

5 MOHAMMED CHIROMA BAUCHI [email protected] 08036451430 KDI/EPT/010 HASSAN 6 CHUKWUMA EJERENWA ESQ BAYELSA chukwuma.ejerenwa@gmail. 7038886019 KDI/EPT/011 com 7 SHICHI AONDOYILA BAR- BENUE shichebatholomew@gmail. 08168329165 KDI/EPT/012 THOLOMEW com 8 AKUDO AHURUONYE BORNO [email protected] 8068154780 KDI/EPT/013 9 PAUL IDIGA CROSS [email protected] 7032885325 KDI/EPT/014 RIVER 10 EGHAGHE JOY EHIOZIE DELTA [email protected] 8069366914 KDI/EPT/015

11 MGBEBU IFEANYI ABRAHAM EBONYI [email protected] 08021330709 KDI/EPT/016

12 PETER AGUEBOR EDO [email protected] 08053738822 KDI/EPT/017

13 OGUNLADE OLAMIDE EKITI [email protected] 7036648776 KDI/EPT/018

14 CHINEMEREM ONUORAH- ENUGU onuorahchinechinemerem@ 8108221203 KDI/EPT/019 CHINE gmail.com 15 OLANIKE UGE FEDERAL olanikeogunmoyin2@gmail. 7033167515 KDI/EPT/020 CAPITAL com TERRITORY 16 JEREMIAH MICHAEL GOMBE [email protected] 07037234399 KDI/EPT/021

17 PRINCE CHIMEZIE OKORO IMO princechimezieokoro1584@ 8036556501 KDI/EPT/042 gmail.com 18 FARIDA MUHAMMAD ISHAQ JIGAWA [email protected] 08065219337 KDI/EPT/022

19 FIDELIS OTENE KADUNA [email protected] 08067443645 KDI/EPT/023

20 SANI AMMANI KANO [email protected] 07066077777 KDI/EPT/024

21 ISMAIL BELLO KATSINA [email protected] 08067118336 KDI/EPT/041

22 MOHAMMED LAMEER KEBBI mohammedlameer247@ 8132007586 KDI/EPT/025 gmail.com 23 BLESSING BEKOKO AMAJA- KOGI [email protected] 8107044028 KDI/EPT/026 MA 24 OYEYEMI EZEKIEL OPEOLU- KWARA [email protected] 08032666867 KDI/EPT/027 WA

190 Election Petition Tribunal Monitoring (EPTM) S/N NAME STATE EMAIL PHONE MONITORS NUMBER CODE

25 AKANGBE JAMIU LAGOS [email protected] 08066393577 KDI/EPT/028 26 EJEGWOYA PETER OGAH NASARA- [email protected] 08060884899 KDI/EPT/029 WA 27 UMAR MUHAMMAD FARUK NIGER [email protected] 8167496954 KDI/EPT/030 28 SONEYE ADEFEMI OGUN [email protected] 07032709295 KDI/EPT/031

29 ALO MARTINS ONDO [email protected] 08051942886 KDI/EPT/032 30 AKINYEMI ABIMBOLA DAVID OSUN davidabimbolaakin@gmail. 8106647758 KDI/EPT/033 com 31 RACHAEL AROWOLO OYO [email protected] 08034499741 KDI/EPT/034

32 CHRIS IYAMA PLATEAU [email protected] 07038562565 KDI/EPT/035 33 CHIEFSON NWAIWU RIVERS [email protected] KDI/EPT/036

34 YUSUF MUHAMMAD LADAN SOKOTO [email protected] 8065360024 KDI/EPT/037

35 JENNIFER JOSEPH TARABA josephjennifer300@gmail. 7068712431 KDI/EPT/038 com 36 UCHECHI OLUGBUO YOBE [email protected] 8038290184 KDI/EPT/039

37 EMMANUEL ANYIFITE ZAMFARA [email protected] 08036254947 KDI/EPT/040

2019 General Elections in Nigeria 191 Suite C13 & C14 | H&A Plaza | Olusegun Obasanjo Way | Wuse | Abuja.

1 | Aresa Close | Behind Union Bank Gbodofon Area | Aregbe | Osogbo, Osun.

+234 813 482 8527 +234 810 394 7690

[email protected] www.kdi.org.ng

www.facebook.com/kdinigeria www.twitter.com/KDI_ng www.instagram.com/KDI_ng