ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) V. RIVERS STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 40285 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Feb 28, 2025

Suit Number: SC.CV/1105/2024(CONSOLIDATED)

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC)

APPELLANTS

RIVERS STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 5. STATE SECURITY SERVICE (DSS)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTORAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, JURISDICTION, PROCEDURAL LAW, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, DISCRETIONARY POWERS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW, FEDERAL POWERS, AGENCY LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The All Progressive Congress (APC) originally filed a suit at the Federal High Court challenging the proposed conduct of Local Government Elections in Rivers State scheduled for October 5, 2024. The Appellant contended that the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC), the 1st Respondent, was conducting the elections in violation of the Electoral Act 2022 and the Constitution. Specifically, the Appellant argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 2nd Respondent, failed to comply with provisions requiring the stoppage of voter registration at least 90 days before the election and that RSIEC did not issue the requisite notices as required by law.

On July 1, 2024, RSIEC announced it would conduct Local Government Elections following the Supreme Court’s directive for immediate democratic elections into Local Government Councils across Nigeria. On July 15, 2024, just 15 days after this announcement, the Appellant filed an Originating Summons seeking to stop the elections on grounds that they violated Sections 28, 29, and 103(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, and sought to prevent INEC, the Inspector General of Police, and the State Security Service (DSS) from providing support for the conduct of the elections.

The Federal High Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, declaring that the proposed elections would be invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, holding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as it pertained to Local Government Elections, which fell within the jurisdiction of the State High Court. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal was allowed.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on November 21, 2024, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/1152/2024 was set aside, and the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on September 30, 2024, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/987/2024 was restored.

The Supreme Court held that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it primarily concerned the statutory functions of INEC, an agency of the Federal Government, regarding the management of the National Register of Voters.

The Court declared that the Local Government Elections conducted in Rivers State on October 5, 2024, were invalid pursuant to Section 150(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Act.

The Court ruled that the decision in SC/CV/1105/2024 would bind Appeal No. SC/CV/1106/2024.

The cross-appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed as lacking merit.

Parties were ordered to bear their costs.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff as those reliefs arose from the proposed Local Government Elections in Rivers State?

Whether the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 apply to all levels of elections in Nigeria, including Local Government Elections, especially in light of Section 150(1)-(4) of the Electoral Act 2022?

Whether the provisions of Sections 13 and 20 of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission Law, 2018 are inconsistent with items 11 and 12 of Part 2 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended?

Whether in the event of a violation of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and items 11 and 12 of Part 2 of the Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Court of Appeal erred in failing to affirm the decision of the Federal High Court as it relates to the 4th and 5th Respondents?

Whether the Court of Appeal was in error when it held that the Federal High Court acted without jurisdiction when it struck down the provisions of Section 60(2) of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission Law No. 18 of 2018 on grounds of inconsistency with the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

I do not share the views of the learned Justices of the lower Court that the references made in the said paragraphs to the conduct of the Local Government Election in Rivers State by themselves connote that the principal issue in controversy between the parties is the conduct of the Local Government Elections in Rivers State. A holistic consideration of the affidavit in support of the Originating summons clearly shows the major grievances of the Appellants herein as Plaintiffs before the Trial Court revolves around the 2nd Respondent’s mandate in respect of its constitutional and statutory powers in managing the voters register and updating same for the purpose of elections covered under the Act, which by the provisions of Section 150(1) of the Electoral Act cover both the Area Councils under the FCT and Local Governments in the States. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY PRINCIPAL RELIEFS

I agree with learned senior counsel for the appellant that a dispassionate consideration of the reliefs and orders sought in the instant case shows that the case is one that borders on the interpretation of the Constitution viz a viz the powers of the 2nd Respondent in the management of the National Voters Register in Nigeria. There is no doubt that the 2nd Respondent is an agency of the Federal Government within the contemplation of the provisions of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as Altered). That being the case, the Federal High Court is in my view clothed with jurisdiction vide Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. The other reliefs against the 1st Respondent herein and the 3rd Respondent are merely incidental to the determination of the 1st relief. The law is trite that subject matter jurisdiction is determined by the principal reliefs and not by the incidental or ancillary reliefs claimed.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS – INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 9 OF THE ELECTORAL ACT

It is thus clear to me from the principal reliefs sought and the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons that the claims are principally anchored on the statutory functions of the 2nd Respondent herein in the management of the National Register of Voters, which by the provisions of Section 9(1) of the Electoral Act the 2nd Respondent is mandated to compile, maintain and update on a continuous basis in respect of persons entitled to vote in any Federal, State, Local Government or Federal Capital Territory Area Council Election. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

APPLICABILITY OF ELECTORAL ACT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS – INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 150 OF THE ELECTORAL ACT

For ease of reference, Section 150 of the Electoral Act states 150. (1) In furtherance of the provision of Paragraph 11 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, the procedure regulating elections conducted by the Commission of Area Councils in the Federal Capital Territory under this Act shall be the same and apply with equal force as the procedure regulating elections conducted to Local Government Areas by any State Commission… (3) Any election to a Local Government Area that is conducted by a State Commission in violation of subsection (1) shall be invalid. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

DISTINCTION FROM PREVIOUS CASE LAW – DIFFERENTIATION OF PRESENT CASE FROM ALIYU V. APC

With due respect to learned counsel, the issue before us has to do with whether the 2nd Respondent can release that part of the National Register of Voters for Rivers State to the 1st Respondent in breach of the provisions of Sections 9, 28, 29 and 103(3) of the Electoral Act. The matter before the Trial Federal High Court has nothing to do with contestation into any of the offices set out for elections and it needs to be emphasized that the decision in ALIYU V. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS & ORS. was decided based on the Electoral Act, 2010 which had been repealed upon the coming into force of the Electoral Act 2022. The facts and the issues in ALIYU V. APC & ORS are therefore not on all fours with the facts and issues in the instant case. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – DISTINCTION BETWEEN ELECTORAL ACT 2010 AND 2022

I agree with the learned senior counsel for the Appellant that the Electoral Act 2010 under which ALIYU VS APC (supra) was decided does not have an identical provision to Section 150 of the Electoral Act by which the 2nd Respondent has the power to, among other things, appoint timelines for the publication of notices of election, to keep and maintain a National Register of Voters nationwide. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

INVALIDITY OF ELECTIONS – EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

In consequence of the failure to abide by the extant provisions of the Electoral Act Regulating the conduct of the election to the Local Government Areas in Rivers State on 5th October 2024 the said election is hereby declared invalid pursuant to the Provision of Section 150(3) of Electoral Act 2022. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

ADMISSION BY DEFAULT – EFFECT OF UNCHALLENGED AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE

In respect of the merit of the appeal, I observed that the 2nd Respondent who is the main subject of the claims, has no defence against the Originating Summons, thus leaving the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons unchallenged. In effect, the 2nd Respondent admitted all the averments in support of the Originating Process. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EFFECT OF FEDERAL AGENCIES AS PARTIES

The 3rd and 4th Respondents herein are also agent and agency of the Federal Government which further reinforces the vires of the Federal High Court to entertain the suit notwithstanding the presence of the 1st Respondent. The Federal High Court, contrary to the holding of the lower Court, is eminently qualified to hear the matter. It has jurisdiction to do so. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS – MANDATORY COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTORAL ACT PROVISIONS

These prescriptions and the other relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 highlighted in this judgment as rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel for the Appellant are statutory preconditions and the failure to satisfy them by the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein will necessarily invalidate the election by the force of the mandatory provision of Section 150(3) of the Electoral Act 2022. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

MANDATORY COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTORAL ACT – EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 150

It is therefore clear that the Local Government election in Rivers State conducted on the 5th of October, 2024 was conducted in clear violation of the Electoral Act, 2022. The said Section 150(1) of the Electoral Act did not give any Court the discretion or leeway whatsoever to look the other way in a situation like what took place in Rivers State on 5/10/2024, where the election was conducted in clear violation of Section 150 of the said 2022 Electoral Act. e.g. Notice of the holding of the Election and the continuous revision of the Voters Register less than 90 days before the election and the inconsistency with Section 28(1) of the Electoral Act 2022.– Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

VOTER REGISTER REQUIREMENTS – MANDATORY UPDATING OF REGISTER BEFORE ELECTIONS

The evidence on record overwhelmingly establishes that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not carry out revision of voters’ register 90 days prior to the Local Government Election conducted on October 5, 2004 in Rivers State. Thus, that being the case, the said election was conducted in gross violation of the provisions of Section 150 of the Electoral Act. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

SCOPE OF ELECTORAL ACT – APPLICATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

Instructively, the provision of Section 150 (supra) vis-a-vis Sections 28, 29, 30 and 103 of the Electoral Act, 2022 (supra) clearly streamline the processes regulated by the INEC (2nd Respondent). Thus, against the backdrop of the finding, the Local Government Election conducted in Rivers State on 05/10/2024 is in flagrant breach of the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.