Paragraph 16
Petitioner’s Reply(1) If a person in his reply to the election petition raises new issues of facts in defence of his case which the petition has not dealt with, the petitioner shall be entitled to file in the registry, within five days from the receipt of the respondent’s reply, a petitioner’s reply in answer to the new issues of fact, so that—
(a) the petitioner shall not at this stage be entitled to bring in new facts, grounds or prayers tending to amend or add to the contents of the petition filed by him; and
(b) the petitioner’s reply does not run counter to the provisions of paragraph 14 (1).
(2) The time limited by subparagraph (1) shall not be extended.
(3) The petitioner in proving his case shall have the time limit as prescribed under paragraph 41 (10).
i. This paragraph seeks to provide an opportunity for a Petitioner to file a Reply to new issues of fact raised in a Respondent’s Reply to the Petition. But the Petitioner is not allowed to bring in new facts, grounds or prayers tending to amend or add to the contents of the petition.
ii.
Where a Petitioner fails to file a reply in denial or rebuttal of new facts or issues raised
in
the Respondent’s reply, it would be deemed to have been admitted by the Petitioner.
Read Michael v. Yuosuo (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 96
iii. Paragraph 16 (3) prescribes a time limit for the petitioner to prove his/her case. The timeline, which is a new introduction in the 2022 Act is indicated in Paragraph 41 (10) . The repealed Act allowed 14 days for the petitioner to prove his case and for the respondent to also reply within 14 days.
ATIKU & ANOR V. INEC & 2 ORS. (Unreported) SC/CV/935/2023
The Supreme Court per Inyang Okoro, JSC, held that a Petitioner is only required to file a reply in answer to new issues
of facts which may be raised in the Respondent’s reply which were not dealt with in the petition. This means that where there
are no issues of facts raised in the respondent’s reply, there would be no need for the petitioner’s reply brief.
See: Oni & Anor V. Oyebanji & Ors, (2023) LPELR-60699 (SC).
PETER OBI & ANOR V. INEC & 3 ORS. (CA/PEPC/03/2023) (Unreported)
By the import of paragraph 16(1)(a) of the 1st Schedule, a Petitioner may in filing a Reply respond to allegations of new
facts raised in a Respondent's reply to the Petition, provided he does not in so doing amend or add to the Petition.
BELLO MUHAMMAD MATAWALLE & APC v. DAUDA LAWAL, PDP, & INEC (CA/S/EP/GOV/ZM/21/2023) @ pages 31- 33
On purport of Paragraph 16 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022:
“The general position of the law in civil cases of which election cases, though "sui generis", are a specie, is that, the claimant in a case has the right to file a reply to a statement of defence filed by the defendant. This, however, is not an opportunity for the claimant to introduce new issues in amplification of his case, which the defendant in law will be entitled and required to further file a process in response to. If this were allowed, there shall be no end to filing of processes.”
“A reply is therefore supposed to respond to new issues raised by the defendant in the statement of defence, so that he can join issues with the defendant on it too. For if the claimant does not join issues on the said new issue of the defendant, he will be deemed to have admitted the allegations therein. A reply will therefore not be necessary, if the parties have already joined issues on the facts when the statements of claim and defence are read together. Hence, if all the claimant wishes to achieve is to deny what was stated in the statement of defence, a reply will not be necessary. The purpose of a petitioner's reply is not to bring in additional evidence or rebuild the case of the petitioner, but to rebut material fresh issues of fact brought in the defence of the respondent.“
On Petitioners raising fresh issues, grounds or prayers tending to amend or add to the contents of the Petition.
RT. HON. ISA IDRIS & ANOR v. INEC & 2 ORS. (CA/KN/EP/HR/JG/30/2023) (Unreported) Pg. 25
The Court of Appeal in prohibiting the practice of a petitioner raising fresh issues and prayers in his reply brief held per Bitrus Sanga, JCA that:
”The consequence of putting in new issues of facts in a petitioner’s reply as in this case is to strike out the offending paragraphs.
Furthermore, paragraph 16 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 does not allow the petitioner to file additional facts with list of witnesses
and their statements on oath outside the prescribed 21 days. Therefore, the additional witness statement on oaths attached to the Petitioner’s reply to the
1st and 2nd Respondent’s replies as rightly held by the Tribunal are incompetent and are hereby struck out.”
