From all I have demonstrated above my inescapable conclusion is that from the pleadings and the totality of the evidence the Tribunal was not right in declining jurisdiction on the issue of the validity of the 2012 Voters Register that has allegedly not compiled in accordance or compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. However, on the pleaded facts and evidence the various acts of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 orchestrated in the petition have not been shown to have substantially affected the outcome of the election.
Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that when a judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with. This presumption, rebuttable though, enures in favour the judgment of the Tribunal appealed. The burden is on the Appellant to show that the judgment appealed is a travesty of justice. These Appellants have not shown how the judgment appealed had occasioned substantial injustice of miscarriage of justice to them in the light of the facts and the prevailing circumstances of the extant Electoral Act, 2010. Apart from the Tribunal wrongfully declining jurisdiction on the issue whether the Voters Register used in the election was valid in law and in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 it is my firm view that the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion to dismiss the Petition No. EPT/GOV/02/2013 filed by the Appellants herein.
All the findings of fact on non-accreditation, over voting, and the sundry acts of electoral malpractices pleaded by the Appellants, as the Petitioners, were made upon painstaking and scrupulous evaluation of the evidential materials on them. Upon these proper evaluations of facts, as done by the Tribunal, the findings of the Tribunal on the issues of non-accreditation, corrupt practices, and the sundry acts of electoral malpractice cannot be faulted. It is, of course, trite that an appellate court will not readily interfere with findings of fact made upon proper evaluation, unless the findings are perverse. It is on this trite principle of law and practice that I refuse to disturb those findings.
Chief Olanipekun, SAN of Counsel for the 1st Respondent seemed to have suggested that the 1st Appellant, himself, was a beneficiary of the acts of indiscretion or illegal injection of names or registrants into the 2012 Voters Register. The 1st Appellant was the candidate sponsored by the 2nd Appellant in the election. The blanket allegation of illegal injection of names into the register without complying with Section 19 and 20 of the Electoral Act, 2010 would seem to make the Appellants in pari delicto in the very acts they complain of against the INEC, the 3rd Respondent, in this appeal. According to the Senior Counsel for 1st Respondent this is a case of a pot calling a kettle black. I leave this judgment at that without any further comments of mine.
I make no order as costs.
• Ejembi Eko Justice, Court of Appeal.
