BETWEEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND THE RULE IN DEMONSTRATION OF EVIDENCE BY WITNESSES IN AN ELECTION PETITION: A CASE STUDY OF PETER GREGORY OBI V. BOLA AHMED TINUBU & ORS PETITION NO: CA/PEPC/03/2023

Abstract

Over the years, administration of justice which ought to be the bane of the judiciary has become one
of the most challenging tasks facing the Nigerian courts/tribunal, especially in an election petition.
Election petition is sui generis and often, there is tendency of the judges to tilt towards procedural
technicalities against substantial justice in deciding matters before the election tribunal. Therefore,
whenever the court dismisses a case on the ground that a particular party fails to follow a proper
step for the judicial enforcement of his right, then it amounts to procedural technicality which often
affect the merit and substance of the case. This is exactly what played out in the 2023 Presidential
Election Petition Tribunal on so many grounds that led to the striking out of the subpoenaed witness
depositions of the Petitioner’s witnesses. The main objective of this paper is to examine substantial
justice and the rule in demonstration of evidence by witnesses in an election petition: a case study of
Peter Gregory Obi v Bola Ahmed Tinubu & Ors1. The work adopted the doctrinal method of research.
It was found that a court does substantial justice when it administered justice fairly regardless of
any procedural errors not affecting the litigant’s rights, a fair trial on the merits. It is also our finding
that the striking out of the subpoenaed witnesses and the relevant documents tendered through them
by the Tribunal in the 2023 Presidential Election Petition is a matter of technical justice than
substantial justice. The paper recommends that judges should always be concerned with achieving
substantial justice than merely placing reliance on technical justice.