Why Wike’s sacking was nullified –Supreme Court

The Supreme Court yesterday explained why it nullified the decision of the River State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal and that of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier nullified the April 11 governorship election which produces Nyesom Wike of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the governor of the state.
The apex court while giving its reasons held that the judgment of the appeal court affirming the judgment of the election petition tribunal sacking Wike was a nullity because the governor did not get a fair hearing as the facts he presented were not considered by the tribunal.

It further held that the tribunal was improperly constituted, explaining that Suleiman Ambursa, chairman of the tribunal gave judgment in error because he did not sit over the initial hearing of the case. Justice Ambursa replaced Justice Muazu Pindiga, who was removed in the middle of the hearing of the state’s governorship election petitions.
It held that Dakuku Peterside, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the governorship poll and respondent in the appeal, was unable to prove that an election did not take place in Rivers State on April 11.

The apex court explained that the burden of proof was on Peterside to prove that the election was marred by wanton violence, and that it did not take place. It had upturned the judgment of both the election petitions tribunal and the appeal court nullifying his victory at the April 11, 2015 poll. In October 2015, the Rivers State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Abuja nullified Wike’s election, and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a fresh poll.

On behalf of the threeman panel, Justice Ambursa,who is the chairman, said Wike was not duly elected governor of Rivers State, adding that the election was flawed based on evidence presented to it. The tribunal held that the testimonies of Wike’s witnesses were weak, and as such could not prove the governors case beyond reasonable doubt. It also held that Wike’s witnesses made contradictory statements, further complicating the defendants’ case.

It dismissed the governor’s petition over the power of the tribunal to entertain the case. Not satisfied, Wike appealed the judgment, but he again lost two months later, when the appeal court unanimously dismissed all the seven issues he raised, and upheld the decision of the tribunal on the conduct of a fresh governorship election in the state. Still not satisfied, Wike approached the apex court where he finally got his election upheld.