ELECTION LAW — Burden of Proof — Non-Compliance — Onus on Petitioner to Establish Substantial Non-Compliance
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in CPC v. INEC & Ors (2011) NLC-123-426-2011(SC) at pp. 53—54; Paras E—A:
"It is therefore not the correct statement of the law, as contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the burden of proof lies on 1st respondent being statutorily charged with the conduct of the election and that once appellant had alleged the irregularities of non-accreditation, under-supply of voting materials, etc, the onus immediately shifts to the respondents because once it appears to the Election Tribunal or court that the election was conducted in accordance with the principle of the Electoral Act, and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election then the 'election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of noncompliance with the provisions of this Act' - See Section 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the burden of proving substantial non-compliance in an election petition lies on the petitioner, and the onus does not shift to the respondent merely because the petitioner alleges irregularities. The principle applies in election petitions. It ensures that petitioners prove their allegations. The principle reflects the requirements for non-compliance. It prevents shifting the burden. The court must require proof. The principle provides guidance on election petitions.