Polling officials are under strict directions to report early for their official exercise. In fact, where polling officials do not report early for duty, they must give reasonable excuse why it is so else if found wanting they will be guilty of an offence which upon conviction may land them to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or a fine of five hundred thousand naira or both. See Section 120(1)(2) Electoral Act 2022.
By Section 120(3)(4) Electoral Act 2022, any person, who conspires to make false declaration of result of an election or who publishes or announces election result knowing same to be false is guilty of an offence and liable upon conviction to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or fine or both or a term of imprisonment of 36 months respectively. It is important to note that this provision does not only criminalize the act of polling officials but extends to any person whatsoever who breaches this Act in this respect.
Buying and selling of votes in Nigeria is illegal and constitutes electoral offence with specific punishments as terms of imprisonment and and/or Fine reserved for them. According to the Electoral Act, this offence is what is referred to as “bribery and conspiracy”.
See Section 121 Electoral Act 2022.
Snatching, stealing or destroying election materials by whatever means or method is not just wrong but also illegal and constitutes an offence punishable with 24 months imprisonment upon conviction. See Section 126(4) Electoral Act 2022
Except where a person is ordinarily entitled to use such vehicle in an emergency situation, and who must be an accredited Electoral Officer on official duty, the use of government vehicle or vehicle belonging to public corporations to convey election material either to a registration office or polling unit is illegal and constitute an offence. Anybody found guilty is liable upon conviction to a term of 6 months imprisonment or a fine of N500,000.00 or both. See** Section 118 Electoral Act 2022**.
Corrupt practices come under electoral offences in the Electoral Act and the schedule thereto. The law as stipulated in ADEOLA V. OWOADE (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 617) 30 at 40-41 that “A candidate is guilty of corrupt practice if he commits any of the offences defined as corrupt offences or if any of those offences is committed with (a) his knowledge or consent (b) the knowledge or consent of a person who is acting under the general or special authority of the candidate with reference to the election.”
The answer is no. In the case of NWOKOLO V. UBOH (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) it was held that; “Malpractices and fraud were not for the Returning Officers to determine but for a tribunal to determine in an election petition challenging an election” It is illegal and unconstitutional for a returning officer at an election to decide and declare that an election was inconclusive by reason of electoral malpractices or fraud. He is supposed to declare the result and allow the aggrieved party to ventilate his grievances before the Election Petition Tribunal which is the only authority empowered to decide that an election was indeed affected by malpractices and fraud.
She is right. Any person who before or during the day of election corruptly by himself or by another person pays money to secure a vote for or against a candidate or threatens anybody to vote or refrain from voting a candidate in an election is guilty of an offence and liable to N100, 000.00 fine or 12 months imprisonment or both. Similarly, anybody who accepts this inducement is guilty of the said offence and liable to same punishment. It needs to be said that where the offence involves the actual use of force or the threat to use force or violence to inflict injury (whether major or minor) in order to secure vote for a candidate or restrain a person from voting a candidate, the punishment is significantly higher. A fine of One Million Naira (N1m) or a term of imprisonment of 3 years is the punishment. See Section 127 and 128 Electoral Act 2022 Similarly, the use of threat by any means to prevent a political aspirant from free use of the media, designated vehicles, mobilization of political support and campaign at an election also constitutes an offence.
Other Electoral offences, including the ones that are by their nature likely to be committed on election day extend to instances where;
The above offences attracts a liability of 2 years imprisonment maximum. Similarly, anybody who prints a ballot paper without authority or who having the authority proceeds to deliberately print more than the required number, or is found without authority in possession of a ballot paper or ballot papers or result form(s) or is found manufacturing, constructing, supplying or importing into Nigeria or has in his possession for use in an election any ballot box and its compartment commits an offence and liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of 12months or both. See ****Section 115 Electoral Act 2022
Except where a person is ordinarily entitled to use such vehicle in an emergency situation, and who must be an accredited Electoral Officer on official duty, the use of government vehicle or vehicle belonging to public corporations to convey election material either to a registration office or polling unit is illegal and constitute an offence. Anybody found guilty is liable upon conviction to a term of 6 months imprisonment or a fine of N500,000.00 or both. See** Section 118 Electoral Act 2022**.
No. You are expected to make your findings and report all evidence to the appropriate authorities for onward investigation and prosecution. However, any person who at an election acts or incite others to act in a disorderly manner commits an offence and is liable to upon conviction a term of imprisonment of 12 months or a maximum fine of N 500,000.00 or both. See Section 125 Electoral Act 2022.
The answer is no. The law is settled that the criminal acts of the political party upon whose platform a candidate contested does not rub on the competence of the candidate in the elections or the validity of his return where he emerges winner of the elections. In the case of FALAE V. OBASANJO (No. 2) (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 599) 476 at 487 the doctrine of election agency was explained and taken a step further. It was held that even if a political party engaged in criminal activities which would disqualify a candidate, it cannot affect the candidate unless the petitioner can and does establish and show that the candidate authorized or ratified the offending conduct.
In the case of** INIAMA V. AKPABIO (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1116) 225 at 307**, the court held that a petitioner seeking a nullification of an election on ground of insufficient provision of ballot papers by the electoral body during the election must show that if the number of ballot papers withheld were recovered, all the voters deprived of voting would have voted for him.
The petitioner has the burden to prove the allegation that the qualification certificate was forged, and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt since the allegation is of criminal act of forgery. Where this is not done the court or tribunal may find that the petitioner has failed to discharge the onus of proof of his allegation of forgery, and so dismiss his petition. In the case of ACN V. LAMIDO (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1303) 560 at 582 the court held on this that; “The issue touching on the allegation of forged certificate put by the appellant against the 1st Respondent. It was the appellant who asserted same and in tandem with the provisions of Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act as applicable at the time the petition was filed, the appellant had the burden of proof to establish same.” In revealing the impact of the failure to prove the allegation on the petitioner’s case, the court went ahead to rule that failure to prove that backbone assertion, means that his petition will fail, even if no evidence is led by the other side.
Yes. If Mr Paulo, or any person for that matter, delivers a false Certificate of Return knowing same to be false and shows it to any news media, he is deemed to have committed an offence and be liable upon conviction to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. Similarly, any returning officer or collation officer who delivers a Certificate of Return knowing same to be false is guilty of an offence and liable to 3 years imprisonment without option of fine. See Section 120(5)(6) Electoral Act 2022.
Where a person votes or procures another to vote in an election even though they are prohibited from voting, such person is upon conviction guilty of an offence and liable to 6month in prison or a fine of N 100,000.00 or both. Similarly, any person who before or during an election makes false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate or makes false statement as to the personal character or conduct of a candidate for whatever reason is guilty of an offence and liable upon conviction to the terms as stated above. See Section 123 Electoral Act 2022
The law as enshrined in Section 144 of The Electoral Act, 2022 provides that; “The Commission shall consider any recommendation made to it by a tribunal with respect to the prosecution by it of any person for an offence disclosed in any election petition.” The tribunal would need to recommend the prosecution of persons against whom electoral offences are alleged to the Commission. See- AD V. FAYOSE (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 932) 151 at 191.
The answer is no. Substantial compliance is required by the law. And substantial does not mean absolute. In the case of BIYU V. IBRAHIM (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 981) 1 at 50, the court held that; “The return to an election will not be avoided where the tribunal or court is satisfied that there was substantial compliance with the law governing the conduct of the election.” See also- IBRAHIM V. SHAGARI (1983) 2 SCNLR 176 at 183.
The answer is no. In electoral law, unusually high turnout of voters at election does not necessarily amount to irregularities, malpractice or non-compliance with the Electoral legislations or rules. In the case of** BIYU V. IBRAHIM (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 981) 1 at 52**, the court held that; “the complaint is what the appellants consider as unusually high turn-out of voters-resulting in 90%-100% voting, could not by itself amount to irregularity, non-compliance with the Electoral Act or malpractice, unless there is some evidence proving that any other acts or omissions amounting to malpractice or non-compliance.”
The answer is no, until Chief Ikpeama Adekunle proves prima facie that there was substantial non-compliance, the onus remains on him to prove that which he asserted. In the case of DPP V. INEC (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1130) 92 at 114 the court held thus; “As was stated by Belgore, JSC. (as he then was) in the case of BUHARI V, OBASANJO at 192 (supra) ‘the burden is on the petitioners to prove that non-compliance has not only taken place by has also substantially affected the result fulfilled. There must be clear evidence of non-compliance, then that, that non-compliance has substantially affected the judgment of the court.” The meaning of this is that when a petitioner alleges non-compliance, he must satisfy the court that such non-compliance was substantial enough to affect the overall result of the election. It invariably means that cogent and compelling evidence must be adduced to establish that the election was substantially affected by such non-compliance. See AUDU V. INEC (No. 2) (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 456 at 519.
The courts have, and wisely so, refused to accept the far-fetched proposition that a body or a person by merely contributing money to a political party is perpetrating undue influence which can equally be said to connote a corruptible act. The courts hold the view in a number of cases; that the term “corrupt practices” denotes or can be said to connote and embrace certain perfidious and debauched activities which are really felonious in character redolent in their depravity and want of ethics. In the case of YESUFU V. OBASANJO (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 847) 554 at 641-642 the Court held with regards to what would qualify as corrupt practices thus; “They become the hallmark of a decayed nature lacking in conscience and principles. I find it difficult to ascribe to the Corporate Nigeria’s fund subscription act this invidious characteristic.”
Further in BUA V. DAUDA (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 657, the erudite jurist, UWAIFO JSC, describes the term undue influence in the following language;
“It is a product of the abuse or improper use of the confidence reposed in someone who is able to put some pressure on or take unfair advantage of another; or who takes an oppressive and unfair advantage of another necessities or distress.”
It is obvious that a donation by a body corporate cannot be said to create undue influence in the picture painted by the above definition.
The above stated, it must be explained, does not cover the state of the law where the financial contribution has to do with money contribution from persons and institutions outside of Nigeria. Section 85 of the Electoral Act, 2022, pursuant to Section 225(3)(a) of the CFRN [Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)], criminalizes financial contributions to political parties from outside Nigeria.
The exact words of S. 225(3) and (4) of the CFRN, 1999 provides thus:
(3) No political party shall -
(a) hold or possess any funds or other assets outside Nigeria, or
(b) be entitled to retain any funds or assets remitted or sent to it from
outside Nigeria
(4) Any funds or other assets remitted or sent to a political party from outside Nigeria shall be paid over or transferred to the Commission within twenty-one days of its receipt with such information as the Commission may require.
Section 85 of the Electoral Act, 2022 has stirred up much controversy over whether or not Nigerians living abroad can, as individuals or groups, contribute or be part of Crowd Fund Raising of any political party in Nigeria. The matter is furthered nuanced down to the micro levels of whether the Constitutional provision in Section 225(3) also covers: i) Groups of Nigerians in Diaspora; ii) Individual Nigerians in Diaspora; iii) Contribution to a Candidate (not a party); iv) A candidate repatriating his funds or assets in outside of Nigeria to fund his electoral expenses.
The truth of the matter is that, if the Mischief Rule of interpretation of statutes is adopted it will be easily accepted that what played prominently in the minds of the writers of the Constitution was how to prevent foreign countries, institutions, organizations, groups and even individual foreigners (citizens of other nationalities), whether for corporate and commercial, religious or political interests or for whatever other reasons, from taking control of or being in a position to influence the outcomes of our elections, and thereafter, control the governance and political decisions by government officials in our country.
At a time where several other countries, including fellow African countries, have been able to enable their citizens in foreign countries to participate in elections in their countries of origin (as long as they meet the normal qualifying conditions), by casting their votes on election days in their countries of origin, in support of parties and candidates of their choice, it would appear to be the most archaic and backward thing to say that the Constitution in Section 225(3) actually was meant to deprive Nigerian citizens outside of the country, who have already been disenfranchised by our inability to enable them cast their votes in support of political parties or candidates of their choice as obtains in other countries in the 21st century, their citizens’ right to contribute to the politics of their country.
If living outside of Nigeria does not deprive a person born as a Nigerian his/her Nigerian citizenship, and in a country where, apart from crude oil revenue, the next greatest inflow of foreign exchange into Nigeria is fund repatriation by Nigerians outside Nigeria, criminalizing financial repatriation of funds by Nigerians outside of Nigeria in support of political parties or candidates of their choice has every appearance of being illogical, immoral, unjust, and indeed, a discrimination in violation of Section 42 of the CFRN, 1999.
The usual attitude in interpretation of statutory provisions that aim to deprive citizens their natural or normal or fundamental right is that the provisions should be STRICTLY interpreted. In line with that, it will be fair and just to restrict the limitation in Section 225(3) of the CFRN, 1999 to contribution to Political Parties, and not to include Candidates.
There can be no reason for anybody to be afraid of Nigerians, whether at home or outside of the country, influencing the outcome of a Nigerian election, for that is what citizens’ participation in the electoral process is meant to achieve.
In the case of HARRIMAN V. IDET (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 619) 417 at 482, court held thus “Before any tribunal could nullify any election duly conducted by the authority saddled with that assignment, all the necessary factors must be meticulously taken into consideration with the aim of ensuring that there are compelling factors to warrant or justify such a serious decision. This stand is buttressed by the fact that nullification or invalidation of an election is the gravest punishment that a candidate duly elected and the authority charged with conducting such election can experience. This is because such a decision would mean going through the expenses, trauma and other hazards of having to go over another election” See-** DPP V. INEC (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1130) 92 at 114-115** A combined reading of Sections 134 of the Electoral Act, 2022, clearly provides the grounds upon which the court will nullify an election as follows;
The use of the word “unlawfully” to qualify the exclusion of a candidate is to except situations where a candidate is excluded by the appropriate authority, for instance by a pre-election court order, on grounds of disqualification to contest or invalid nomination in the absence of a valid National Party congress, as was the crux of the matter in Rivers State in the 2019 General Elections where the order of court held that the APC had no valid candidature for the gubernatorial elections in Rivers State. This exclusion ordered by the Court and upheld on appeal, was a legal exclusion and is by no means unlawful, and such exclusion will not fall within the meaning of unlawful exclusion of a party or candidate within the meaning of Section 134(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 to warrant nullification of an election result.
Accreditation of voters before their actual casting of their votes is a mandatory procedure as provided for under Section 47 of the Electoral Act, 2022. So, the answer is that such is fatal to that election. The effect of non-accreditation as an instance of non-compliance on an election lies in the fact of its occurrence. Any election that occurred without accreditation of voters is a complete nullity. Such an election proceeded in complete and flagrant violation of the principles of the Electoral Act which the law itself jealously protects. In the case of FAYEMI V. ONI (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 223 at 287, the court held thus; “No lawful election can take place without strict compliance with accreditation requirement. Unlike other species of non-compliance which effect on the results of the election must be separately proved by the petitioner, non-compliance arising from non-accreditation of voters is so fundamental and the effect it has on the result of the election lies in the fact of its occurrence. You must have an election lawfully so called to be able to talk of the results of that election. Election results ensue from lawful votes cast in a manner recognized by law”.