Section 137
Effect of non-complianceIt shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.
This is an entirely new provision in the 2022 Electoral Act which dispenses with the need for oral evidence. It seeks to lessen the burden of proof on a Petitioner who challenges an election on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act in the conduct of elections.
The section provides that where a person complains of non-compliance, it is enough proof if the person produces originals or Certified True Copies of Documents that shows the non-compliance without necessarily calling oral evidence.
On Dispensing with oral evidence.
DAUDA LAWAL V. BELLO MUHAMMED MATAWALLE, APC, INEC & PDP (Unreported) SC/CV/1165/2023. Judgment delivered on 12th January 2024.
Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 cannot apply to allegations of any irregularity but applies only to allegations of non-compliance with the provisions
of the Electoral Act to remove the need to call oral evidence to prove the alleged non-compliance. Consequently, polling unit result in Form EC8A tendered by
polling unit agents remains the primary evidence of the votes scored in any polling unit and in this case, the Petitioners failed to tender the Polling Units Results
(EC8A) in evidence to prove the existence of actual votes scored different from the votes in the results declared by INEC. The lower court was wrong to have applied
section 137 to allow them dispense with calling eyewitnesses.
JIBRIN MUHAMMAD BARDE & 1 OR. v. INEC & 2 ORs. (SC/CV/1226/2023) (Unreported) @ Pg. 52
On the implication of the failure of a petitioner to support his documentary evidence with oral testimonies linking them to the documents in order to
successfully prove his case, the Supreme Court, per Olatokumbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC, held that:
“…the Appellant’s documents were dumped on the Tribunal without being demonstrated as Section 137 does not absolve a party from the need to properly link any of the
bulk of documents tendered to specific aspects of their case.”
The court further held that the “Appellants expected the Tribunal to retire to chambers and scrutinize the documents one by one to determine which one supports a particular aspect of their case which is not the duty of the court.”
On the application of section 137 in where there are criminal allegations
APC V. KATUKA SOLOMON, PDP, DAHIRU LIMAN & INEC (APPEAL NO: CA/K/EP/SHA/KD/42/2023) (Unreported)
The Court of Appeal held that Paragraph 46(4) and section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 cannot be invoked to settle criminal allegations.
COLE TONYE PATRICK V. INEC, FUBARA SIMINALAYI & PDP (CA/ABJ/EP/GOV/RV/121/2023) (Unreported)
Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 is not a substitute for the need to prove criminal allegations,
for which the Electoral Act provides penal sanctions for defaulters.
MAKINDE V. ADEKOLA (2022) 9 NWLR (PT 1835) 13.
ORJI & ANOR V. INEC & ORS (2020) LPELR-49525(CA).
