Amidst the controversies surrounding the presidential election held on February 25, 2023, more clarity has emerged regarding the correct interpretation of ‘the 25 per cent of all votes cast’ in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

The clarity came from a Supreme Court ruling in a case involving Muhammadu Buhari of the then All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Olusegun Obasanjo of the then Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on Friday, July 15, 2005.

In its ruling, the apex court had upheld that presidential candidates must win 25 per cent of all votes cast in 24 states, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

One of the cruxes of the matter for determination in Buhari v. Obasanjo [2005] was Section 134(1 & 2) of the Constitution which said:

Pix

“(1) A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected, where, there being only two candidates for the election:

(a) he has the majority of votes cast at the election; and,

(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

“(2) A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election: (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

The trial of the petition, which lasted about 15 months, began before the Court of Appeal (Abdullahi, PC.A., Mahmud Mohammed, J.C.A. (as he then was) Nsofor and Tabai, C.A) on the 25th day of September, 2003, ended on the 20th day of December, 2004.

The court heard the 139 witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd petitioners (1st and 2nd appellants/cross-appellants), the 100 witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd respondents (1st and 2nd respondents/ appellants) and the 116 witnesses called by the 3rd and 6th to 268th respondents (3rd and 6th to 268th respondents/cross respondents), being altogether 355 witnesses.

In the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Tabai, J.CA., (with Nsofor J.C.A. dissenting,) the court held as follows:

“I have considered the evidence in support of the allegations in each of the 14 States which elections (sic) were questioned. And in the exercise I have cancelled the election in Ogun State, some Local Government Areas, Wards and Units.

“The question is the effect (sic) of this annulment on the election in the country. For the determinations (sic) of this question I refer to the provisions of section 134(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“Section 134(2) of the Constitution provides:

““A candidate for an election to the office of president shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election — (a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

“This provision appears clear to me. Where a candidate wins the highest number of votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, he is deemed to be elected…

“I do appreciate any ambiguity in the provisor and even if there was one, this court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible. (See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition, Chapter 10).

“In my view, it would lead to absurdity and manifest injustice to nullify the election for the entire nation because of the nullification of the election of one State, some Local Government Areas, Wards and Units.

“Such a devastating result could hardly have been contemplated by the framers of the Constitution.