NUANCES

Nigerian Courts have a constitutional mandate to resolve disputes. In the resolution of disputes, the Courts evaluate issues nominated by the respective parties in light of the facts of the case and extant laws. In reaching its decisions in the case under review, the court considered the legal implication of the evidence of police officers and the tilting of the burden of proof. The Court further considered the quantum and quality of evidence required to meet the standard of proof in civil and criminal proceedings. The court held that the evidence required to discharge the burden of proof in criminal matters is on proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, this does not translate to proving the crime alleged beyond all shades of doubt. In considering these positions of the Supreme Court, this study examines the legal issue of admissibility and validity of completed election result forms given to the police. The study takes the stance that results given to the police are authentic and valid evidence to establish cases of mutilation of scores, over voting and unlawful exclusion of votes. The study finds that exclusion of votes by a Returning Officer is unlawful and an act ultra vires the power of the Returning Officer. The law empowers the Presiding Officer to exclude votes. Any vote excluded by the Returning Officer constitutes unlawful exclusion of votes. The Courts usually countenance votes that were unlawfully excluded; that was the situation in the case under review. The case under review could easily be said to have been fought and won on the law governing burden and standard of proof. The study, in the final analysis, finds that the respondents, especially INEC misconceived the concept and this resulted in the loss of the matter. The respondents did not call witnesses or tender documents to establish their respective positions, even in extreme cases where they raised fundamental issues of law.The decision of the Supreme Court is final. The finality of the decision of the Supreme Court carries with it the effect of infallibility; a status acquired merely by virtue of it being the final court. The Tuesday, January 14, 2020 decision of the Supreme Court followed with it a gale of criticisms. While some of the concerns shared appears justifiable both in principle and at law, the hastiness of the decision which failed to accommodate obvious circumstances at law leaves so much to be desired. That decision for the umpteenth time terminated the tenure of a sitting governor. Whether that decision was right or wrong, is what this paper seeks to determine in detail. The paper considers the justifiability or otherwise of opinions expressed in reaction to the decision and also seeks to examine the relevance of the decision in the light of the recent amended Electoral Act, 2022.