The Supreme Court Was Right On Bayelsa Judgment

    Just yesterday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria upturned the victory of the Governor-elect of Bayelsa State, David Lyon, on the ground that that Deputy Governor-elect presented  fake certificates to contest the election. This Judgment of the Supreme Court has generated a maniacal frenzy in the polity, with avalanche of mixed comments flowing from the media. Some sections of the media saw the judgment as a travesty of justice while some saw it as substantial justice flavoured with sound reasoning and jurisprudence. It is on this pedestal that I would be appraising the positions of the law to examine the correctness of such judgment on the face of substantial jurisprudence.

    It is trite law and knowledge that the Electoral Act is the principal law that guides and regulates the conducts of elections in Nigeria. Close to it is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that establishes the arms of the government and confers their respective powers on them. However for this purpose of this exposition, I shall narrow down my appraisal to the qualification of candidates to participate in elections in Nigeria.

    Generally, under the Nigerian laws and jurisprudence, a person is qualified to contest election once he meets the stipulated qualifications to contest such office as provided by the Electoral Act and the Constitution. Otherwise, any candidates that fall short of the stipulated qualifications shall be disqualified from participating in the election. In other words, any little anomaly attached to qualification would be visited with outright ineligibility.

    Specifically, S. 138 of the Electoral Act provides the grounds upon which an election petition may be filed by an opposition candidate or party to challenge the victory of another candidate in an election. And among the grounds is the issue of qualification. For example, S. 138(1)a provides that an election petition may be brought against a candidate on the ground that he was not eligible to participate in the election. And such ineligibility may include presentation of fake certificates, proven fraud or misrepresentation and by extension nationality status or age of the candidate. Therefore, the issue of presentation of fake certificate is a grand anomaly that can never be overlooked. It is outright disqualification! See the case of Action Congress v. INEC (2007).

   Sharing the same pedestal on the issue of qualification is S.31(5) and (6) of the same Act which provides that any person who has reasonable ground to believe that any information given by a candidate in an affidavit or document is false can proceed to the Federal High Court or High Court of State and FCT to challenge such fraudulent misrepresentation. See the case of Alhassan v. Ishaku (2015).

   Narrowing it down to Bayelsa Judgment, the PDP relied on the provision of S. 31(5) and (6) of the Act to challenge the victory of the David at the Federal High Court on the ground that his running mate presented a fake certificate to contest the election. Relying on the provisions of the law and the overwhelming arguments of PDP counsel, the Federal High Court delivered judgment in favour of PDP.

   Dissatisfied by this, David Lyon and APC appealed the judgment of the trial court at the Court of Appeal on the ground that the judgment escaped pure logic and jurisprudence. Shockingly however, the Court of Appeal upheld the arguments of APC and overruled the Judgment of the trial court.

   The PDP finally reached for the apex court to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal upturning the judgment of the trial court faulting the eligibility of the Deputy Governor-elect. The Supreme Court, as expected, examined the matter on the face of substantial jurisprudence, applicable laws and the facts of the case. It therefore gave a unanimous decision upturning the decisions of the appellate court and declaring the next party with the highest votes as the winner of the election. And by implications, PDP would return as the winner of the election.

   The Supreme Court, in my opinion, was very correct without any reservations. It simply applied the law on its surface without external considerations for events occasioning the election. That is overwhelmingly reasonable and it has considerably set a pace for our electoral jurisprudence. The judgment draws to my mind the case of Faleke v. APC where Faleke contended that he was Deputy Governor-elect  by the virtue of the results available before the election was declared inconclusive by INEC. Meanwhile, Audu, being the APC candidate died before the rerun. Faleke approached the court that he should be declared the Governor elect. The Supreme court however ruled that in an any gubernatorial or presidential elections, the two candidates bearing the flag of a party hold joint ticket. As such, none of them can win election and be declared winner without the other.

   The above ratio decidendi (reason for decision) in Faleke's case was the same that was applied by the same Supreme Court in David Lyon v. Duoye Diri & PDP. David Lyon held a joint ticket with the Deputy Governor-elect. Therefore, since the Deputy Governor-elect wasn't qualified to contest the election, so was David Lyon.

Please how does that amount to travesty of justice? In the words of Lord Denny in Mcfoy v. UAC, "you can't build something on nothing and expect it to stand. It will definitely collapse". Bayelsa APC has built their victory on nothing, so therefore their victory collapsed. Whose fault? The Supreme Court? May all those vilifying the judiciary be guided back to their senses.

Written by:-  Ali Toyin Smart Barrister