The Rivers State Governor, Chief Nyesom Wike, has filed an appeal at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, asking the court to set aside the judgment of the Rivers State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, which nullified his election on October 24, 2015.
In a notice of appeal dated November 3, 2015, and filed same day by his lawyer, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), the governor raised 26 grounds of appeal upon which he sought to set aside the tribunal judgment.
The governor is challenging the entire judgment.
He joined the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its governorship candidate in Rivers State, Dr. Dakuku Peterside, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), as respondents.
He asked the court to allow the appeal and to make an order setting aside the judgment/decision of the Rivers State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal.
He further urged the Court of Appeal to make an “order striking out or dismissing the petition filed on May 3, 2015 by Peterside and the APC.”
The governor  in his notice of appeal stated: “Take notice that the appellant  being dissatisfied with  the  decision of the Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal for Rivers State sitting in Abuja,  contained in the judgment of the  tribunal led by Justice Suleiman Ambrosa (chairman), Justice Wesley Ibrahim Leha (member) and Hon. Justice Bayo Taiwo (member ) sitting in Court No. 23 of the FCT High  Court dated October 24, 2015, doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3, and will at the hearing, seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4.”
Wike, among other grounds, noted that the tribunal erred in law when it relied on hearsay and inadmissible evidence to nullify his election.
He added that the finding and conclusion of the tribunal was not supported by evidence before the court.
The governor  stated in his notice of  appeal: “The Governorship  Election Petitions Tribunal for Rivers State erred in law when it refused to follow the decision of the Supreme Court  in the  case of Kakih  vs PDP (2014) 5 NWLR which was duly cited to it to the effect that a party who makes non-voting or misconduct  of an election  the pivot of his case must call at least one disenfranchised  voter from each of the polling booths or units or stations in the constituency.”
Wike also faulted the tribunal’s decision nullifying his election on the basis of card reader accreditation even though the Electoral Act recognised manual accreditation.
According to him, the proof of accreditation of voters under the law is by the production of the register of voters bearing the indications of the presiding officer as to the persons accredited to vote and not by card reader report.
The governor said:  “The tribunal wrongly  neglected, failed  and refused to  abide by and follow  the binding decision of the Court of Appeal in APC vs Olujimi Agbaje : Appeal No: CA/L/EP/GOV./751A/2015 (unreported ) delivered on 26th August,  which was duly cited to it and thereby came to  a wrong conclusion.”
He added that the petitioners at the tribunal  failed to disclose  any reasonable cause of  action  against  the respondents and the tribunal failed to  conduct a  pre-trial conference  after the removal of  the  first  chairman,  hence the  tribunal  erred in  its judgment.
The governor  stated: “The tribunal  wrongly countenanced the testimony of delegates  of subpoenaed witnesses which  basically constitutes an indirect alteration of or addition to  the statement  of  facts of the petition without  the  leave of the court. The testimonies of these witnesses run counter to the pleaded case of the petitioners and contradict the rest of the evidence of the petitioners’ witnesses in several material particulars.”
Similarly, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), has also filed an appeal against the judgment of the Rivers State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal nullifying the election of Governor Nyesom Wike.
The electoral body filed her appeal dated 4th of November, 2015, at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division on 5th November, 2015.
In a 12-ground appeal filed on behalf of INEC by her counsel, Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, the electoral body challenged the entirety of the tribunal’s judgment.
The reliefs sought by INEC in her appeal include: “an order allowing the appeal, an order setting aside the decision of the tribunal and an order dismissing the petition as lacking in merit”.
According to INEC, the learned justices of the tribunal erred in law when it failed to evaluate the evidence of each of the witnesses called by the petitioners before reaching its decision.
INEC stated that: “The tribunal was obligated to making findings as to where elections were said to have held on the one part and where they were alleged not to have held on the other part”.
The electoral body further stated that the tribunal erred when it resorted to generic declaration like “many instances”, when the justices were obligated to specify where the evidence elicited under cross examination enhanced the case of the first and second respondents.
The INEC further stated that the tribunal erred when it used the testimonies of witnesses who were not at polling stations to nullify the Rivers State governorship election.
INEC, in her appeal, stated that: “Evidence of reports at an election by persons who did not make them and who did not observe the proceedings, the subject matter of the reports cannot be substitute for evidence of witnesses in the polling units of Rivers State.
“Exhibits A303-A305, A307 and A2 are documentary hearsay, which ought not to be relied upon as proof of the allegations of non-conduct and improper conduct of election in the polling units in Rivers State”.
INEC stated that the tribunal disregarded Section 49 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, which is a statutory provision binding on it, and further added that the decision of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the law, were duly cited to the tribunal, but it ignored same.
According to INEC, there was no due evaluation of the 56 witnesses called by the petitioners, pointing out that the witnesses who testified did not link their testimonies to the documents tendered.
INEC added that the tribunal erred in law when it failed to indicate that the petitioners failed to prove their case on a polling unit by polling unit basis as required by law.
The electoral body added that the tribunal erred when it failed to demonstrate the reasons why it rejected the evidences professed by witnesses of INEC, PDP and Wike.