as the governor of Ekiti State, the Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed
the decision of the tribunal which had earlier upheld Fayose's
election.
Immediately after Fayose was elected as the governor of Ekiti State on
June 21, 2014, the All Progressives Congress (APC) approached the
tribunal to challenge the victory.
The tribunal in its judgement upheld Fayose's election and dismissed
the petition.
Not satisfied, APC approached the court of appeal to challenge the
decision of the tribunal.
The Court of Appeal in turn dismissed the appeal and also upheld the
decision of the lower court.
Still not satisfied, the APC also approached the apex court.
The party raised 17 grounds of appeal bothering on the fact that the
lower court erred in dismissing its appeal.
The appellant hinged its appeal on ground that Fayose was not
qualified to contest in the election having been impeached on grounds
of embezzlement.
The appellant also alleged that Fayose submitted a forged HND
Certificate from the Polytechnic Ibadan to the Independent National
Electoral Commission INEC.
The apex court in its judgement delivered by Justice Sylvester
Ngwuta, held that the Tribunal was right to have struck out the names
of the IGP and COA as parties in the suit.
He noted that a party to a suit is one which his interest is in
dispute or which a suit cannot be decided without him.
The court however noted that both the IGP and COA have no interest in
the election in Ekiti state and going by the provision of Electoral
Act as to who constitute a party to an election petition, the IGP and
COA did not fall into such category as they are not staff of INEC.
"Appellant did not show that the IGP and COA have special interest in
the election in Ekiti state. It did not even show that they are
indegenes of Ekiti state. None of them falls under the category of who
can bring a petition to the tribunal as provided by the Electoral Act.
Any group outside the officers not employed in the election does so on
their own and they can not answer for their conduct.
"IGP and COA at all material time are not staff of INEC, they are not
parties to the election in Ekiti state. Assuming they are parties, the
relief sought against them is not as to cancellation of the election,
it does not therefore make sense to join them", the court held.
On the issue of impeachment, the court held that the ground raised by
the appellant is not part of the provision of the Electoral Act as to
disqualify a governorship aspirant.
The court further cited S182 (1)(e) of the 1999 Constitution which
provides qualification for a governorship aspirant.
"A conviction and sentence are the major issues here. The code of
conduct is not an impeachment panel. Jurisdiction cannot be shared
between code of conduct tribunal and impeachment panel. Even though,
it was alleged that the governor was impeached for embezzlement, he
was not arraigned before a court of competent jurisdiction", the court
held.
The court also noted that the first impeachment panel gave Fayose a clean bill.
He also noted that the second panel constituted was unconstitutional
because the judge that constituted it did not have the power to do so.
The court also held that the Ekiti state house of assembly did not
substantiate the petion and hence one cannot say that he committed any
crime.
Citing S188 of the Constitution, the court held that the second panel
was an unconstitutional panel and that it's proceeding was an exercise
in futility.
The court however resolved the issue against the appellant.
On the issue of forgery, the court held that it is an offence that
should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
"To prove forgery, the original document must be produced and also the
forged document. In this case , only one document was produced.
Appellant was not even certain that the other name it alleged
existed. A person impersonated must have been brought into the case.
"The appellant here has failed to prove the case of forgery beyond
reasonable doubt and more so the principle of Estopel has caught up
with the issue as the matter had once been decided once and hence
cannot be litigated over again.
The court also resolved the issue against the appellant.
"In the final analysis, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lacking in
merit. The judgement of the court below is hereby upheld", the court
held.
--Leadership
No comments:
Post a Comment