ELECTION LAW — Non-Compliance — Presumption of Regularity — Rebuttable Presumption
Ratio Decidendi
Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in CPC v. INEC & Ors (2011) NLC-123-426-2011(SC) at p. 61; Paras A—C:
"To succeed, the petitioner must establish that there was non compliance, and it was substantial thereby affecting the result. It is after the above is established that the onus shifts to the respondents to establish that the results were not affected. Indeed in Nwobodo v. Onoh 1984 1 All NLR p.2. This court held that there is a rebuttable presumption that the result of any election declared by FEDECO (now INEC) is correct and authentic and the onus is on the person who denies its correctness and authenticity to rebut the presumption."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a petitioner must first prove non-compliance substantially affecting the result, after which the onus shifts to the respondent to show the results were not affected. There is a rebuttable presumption that INEC-declared results are correct. The principle applies in election petitions. It ensures that results are presumed valid. The principle reflects the shifting burden. It places the initial burden on the petitioner. The court must apply the presumption. The principle provides guidance on election results.