The republic of uganda in the supreme court of uganda at kampala

(a) that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of Part II of this Act;”

By S.123 (1), of the same Act.

“An election shall not be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with part II of this Act if it appears to the Court having cognisance of the question that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of the said Part II and that the non-compliance did not affect the result of the election’

In his petition, the appellant questioned the election on the ground of the second limb of section 122(1)(b) i.e. alleging non-compliance with the provisions of Part II of the Act and also on the ground of section 122(1)(c) alleging that the 1st respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes at the election. The petitioner’s witnesses not only failed to prove his case but they proved the contrary. Their evidence established that the election had been conducted in scrupulous compliance with the Act and that the 1st Respondent was duly elected by majority of lawful votes at the election.

Now although in the present petition learned Counsel for the two respondents submitted that the Shehu Shagari decision is similar to the petition now under consideration, the facts as set out above make the Shagari case clearly distinguishable. A part from the fact that Shagari won by 1 2,047,648 votes and the Petitioner (appellant) got a mere 640,928, being defeated by a majority of over 11 million votes, the appellant failed to get even the statutory minimum of one quarter of votes in every one of the Federal States of Nigeria. That alone was sufficient to knock him out. Secondly he made the fatal error of calling as key witnesses for his case, three witnesses who were the key players in the election and whom he had sued as respondents to the petition. They indeed testified on his behalf that the provisions of the law, which were alleged to have been breached, had been scrupulously compiled with.

Thirdly the rest of his twenty-three witnesses, including himself, had been proved unreliable. It was therefore easy for the panel of the trial judges to dismiss the petition and the dismissal was easily upheld by both the Court of Appeal of Nigeria as well as by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

One of the key witnesses in the Shagari case testified and was believed that the provisions of the Act which those witnesses administered, had been scrupulously complied with; therefore I think there was no longer an issue to decide whether the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of that law and whether that non-compliance did affect the result of the election. It was therefore not surprising that Irikefe, JSC, found evidence available to the appellant was so palpably unreliable as to reduce the proceedings in Court to a farce.

In summary in the Shagari’s case, the Petitioner had wholly failed to prove every one of the allegations against the Respondent. On the facts the court found no need to decide the issue of non-compliance affecting the election result and if so whether the effect was substantial.