ELECTORAL JURISPRUDENCE ON EDO GUBERNATORIAL VERDICT BY THE TRIBUNAL – NOT AN OPINION BUT THE POSITION OF THE CURRENT LAW ON S137 OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2022.- Monday Ubani SAN
In the recent Edo State governorship election petition, the tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, citing the petitioners’ failure to call competent witnesses to substantiate their claims of non-compliance with the Electoral Act. The tribunal noted that merely submitting documentary evidence without accompanying testimony amounted to “dumping” documents on the tribunal, which is insufficient to prove allegations of non-compliance.
Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 was designed to alleviate the burden on petitioners by allowing them to rely on original or certified true copies of documents that manifestly disclose non-compliance, without the necessity of calling oral evidence. However, judicial interpretations have varied regarding this provision. In the case of Oyetola v. INEC, the Court of Appeal held that the decision to require oral evidence rests with the judge and cannot be overridden by statutory provisions like Section 137. This position was upheld by the Supreme Court, effectively limiting the application of Section 137.
Given these precedents, the tribunal’s stance in the Edo governorship dispute aligns with higher court rulings, emphasizing that while Section 137 aims to simplify evidentiary requirements, the courts retain discretion to determine the necessity of oral testimony. Therefore, the tribunal’s approach does not contradict Section 137 but reflects the judiciary’s interpretation that documentary evidence alone may not suffice without corroborative oral evidence.
.
In the light of this position, if we as a country desires to solve the problem of discarding calling polling units’ agents in every units where there is an alleged irregularity by relying on documentary evidence to prove the Petitioner’s case, we may have to AMEND SECTION 137 OF THE ACT further to actualize the true intent of that Section. For now the Supreme Court’s decision of that Section binds every lower courts in the land including the same Supreme Court that made the said decision in the first place, unless the supreme court overrules itself subsequently.
My humble opinion.
Dr Ubani SAN
