Senator Ademola Nurudeen Adeleke & Anor. v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Ors.

Background & Parties

The legal relationship central to this dispute is that between a gubernatorial candidate (and his political party) and the electoral umpire, INEC, which exercises statutory power to conduct and declare election results. The Appellants, Senator Ademola Adeleke and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenged the exercise of INEC's power following the Osun State Governorship election of September 22, 2018. The core legal question was whether INEC had the authority to declare the election inconclusive and conduct a supplementary poll, and more critically, whether a procedural defect at the Election Petition Tribunal—the absence of a member during a crucial hearing—fatally nullified its judgment which had initially favoured the Appellants.

Material Facts

1. On September 22, 2018, INEC conducted the Osun State Governorship election. Senator Adeleke (PDP) secured 254,698 votes, while Mr. Gboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) polled 254,345 votes.
2. Before declaring a final winner, the State Returning Officer cancelled results in seven polling units, citing disruptions. Despite the cancellation, Senator Adeleke maintained a lead of 353 votes.
3. INEC declared the election inconclusive and scheduled a re-run election for September 27, 2018, in the affected units.
4. Following the re-run, Mr. Oyetola was declared the winner with a total of 255,505 votes against Senator Adeleke's 255,023.
5. The Appellants successfully challenged this outcome at the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which, in a majority decision, nullified the re-run and declared Senator Adeleke the duly elected governor.
6. A pivotal fact emerged that one member of the Tribunal panel, Justice Peter Obiorah, who wrote the lead majority judgment, was absent on February 6, 2019, when key witnesses for the Respondents testified and tendered evidence.
7. The Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal's decision, holding that Justice Obiorah's absence rendered the entire proceedings and the resulting judgment a nullity. This procedural issue became the central point of contention at the Supreme Court.

Real Issue

The deeper legal conflict in this case was the tension between procedural justice and substantive justice. The court was forced to resolve whether a significant procedural error—a defect in the composition of the adjudicating panel—could override a detailed, merits-based finding on the substantive outcome of an election. It pitted the sacrosanct principle that a court must be properly constituted throughout proceedings against the public interest in giving effect to the lawful votes of the electorate.

Legal Issues

• Whether the absence of a member of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal during the testimony of crucial witnesses renders the Tribunal's final judgment a nullity.
• Whether INEC possesses the statutory power to declare an election inconclusive and order a re-run where a winner had emerged based on the majority of lawful votes cast.
• Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the Tribunal's decision on the grounds of a defective panel composition, thereby avoiding a determination on the substantive merits of the election's outcome.

Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court, in a split decision, resolved the tension between procedural regularity and substantive findings by prioritising the former. It reasoned that the composition of a court or tribunal is a fundamental, jurisdictional issue that precedes any consideration of the merits. The majority held that for a judge to form an opinion on the evidence, they must be present to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess the probative value of the evidence as it is presented. The absence of Justice Obiorah during the testimony of two key witnesses meant he could not have validly participated in the final judgment, as his conclusions on that evidence would be based on conjecture, not direct observation. This defect was deemed so fundamental that it rendered the entire proceedings of the Tribunal incurably void. The court sacrificed the Tribunal's substantive findings on the election results to uphold the cardinal principle of fair hearing and proper judicial constitution, establishing that a procedurally flawed foundation cannot support a valid legal outcome, no matter how compelling the substantive arguments may be.

Decision & Outcome

The Supreme Court, by a majority of 5 to 2, dismissed the appeal. It affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment which had set aside the Election Petition Tribunal's decision. Consequently, Mr. Gboyega Oyetola was confirmed as the duly elected Governor of Osun State.

Ratio Decidendi

On these facts, where a member of a judicial or quasi-judicial panel is absent during a substantive part of the proceedings where evidence is taken, but subsequently participates in writing and delivering the final judgment, such a judgment is a nullity. The principle of fair hearing under the Constitution requires that all members of an adjudicating panel must be present for the entirety of the hearing to validly determine the matter; a defect in composition at any stage is not a mere technicality but a fundamental flaw that vitiates the entire proceedings, irrespective of the merits of the case.

Significance

This decision reinforces the doctrine that jurisdiction, including the proper composition of a court, is the bedrock of any valid judicial proceeding in Nigeria. It clarifies that the physical presence of all panel members during the hearing of evidence is a non-negotiable component of fair hearing. The judgment serves as a stark precedent that procedural integrity will, in certain fundamental aspects, be elevated above the substantive merits of a case. For later courts, it establishes a strict, bright-line rule: any variation in the composition of a panel during a trial is fatal and cannot be cured. The decision leaves unresolved the tension of what happens when such a fatal procedural error prevents a final, authoritative determination on which candidate actually secured the majority of lawful votes in an election.