Hundreds of residents of Ado-Ekiti on Tuesday trooped to the streets to celebrate the victory of Governor Ayo Fayose at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had dismissed the suit filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) seeking to nullify Fayose’s election.
The apex court affirmed the decision of the tribunal which had earlier upheld Fayose’s election.
After the Ekiti governorship election held on June 21, 2014 which produced Fayose, the APC headed to 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 Appeal Court, in turn, dismissed the appeal and also upheld the decision of the lower court.
Still not satisfied, the APC had approached the apex court.
The appellant had raised 17 grounds of appeal bordering on the fact that the lower court erred to have dismissed its appeal.
The appellant hinged it’s 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 appellant also argued that the tribunal erred for striking out the names of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) as parties in the suit.
Delivering judgement, Justice Sylvester Ngwuta held that the tribunal was right to have struck out the names of the IGP and (COAS) as parties in the suit.
He noted 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 COAS 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 COAS did not fall into such category as they are not staff of INEC.
In Ado-Ekiti on Tuesday, elated residents, including traders, commercial motorcycle riders, students among others, danced round the streets and performed acrobatic display.
The residents, who also sang victory songs, said they stayed glued to their television sets and listened on their radios to hear the outcome of the judgement.
Armed security men had hectic time controlling the jubilant crowd.
The situation became charged when the governor appeared on television to formally invite Ekiti people to come out to join him in a road procession round the city.
Fayose, who led the carnival-like procession, carried placards with inscriptions which read: “God, I thank you, Ekiti people, I thank you for your steadfastness”.
The jubilant crowd was electrified and cheered Fayose when he bought ten pieces of banana from a road side hawker and ate some in the full glare of the public near the palace Ewi of Ado-Ekiti.
Fayose, who later addressed the crowd, said that the legal tussle on his mandate had been laid to rest by the Supreme Court.
He commended the Supreme Court for the judgement, saying that it had helped to secure the mandate freely given to him by the people of Ekiti.
The governor called on those still nursing grievances about his election to have a re-think and join him in developing the state
Justice Ngwuta also said: “Appellant did not show that the IGP and COAS have special interest in the election in Ekiti State. It did not even show that they are indigenes 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 COAS 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”.
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 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 petition and hence, one cannot say that he committed any crime.
Citing Section 188 of the Constitution, the court held that the second panel was an unconstitutional panel and that its 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.
