CORAM
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU
PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN
PARTIES
ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)
APPELLANTS
1. AHIJO JOEL AYUBA
2. ALHAJI NJOBDI SALE KWAJA
3. MOHAMMED BOBBOI
4. BALA ABDULLAHI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
JURISDICTION, ELECTION, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The underlying facts of this case are that the 2nd Respondent (Alhaji Njobdi Sale Kwaja) and the 3rd Respondent (Mohammed Bobboi) were candidates for the position of Chairman at the elective congress of the 1st Appellant (All Progressives Congress (APC) for the Mubi South Local Government Area, whilst the Respondent (Ahijo Joel Ayuba) and the 4th Respondent (Bala Abdulahi) were candidates for the position of Vice Chairman. The Congress was conducted by the Local Government Congress Committee constituted by the 1st Appellant for that purpose on 4/9/21 at Government Day Secondary School, Lamorde. The 2nd and 4th Respondents emerged victorious and were returned as duly elected. The 1st Respondent was peeved at the outcome and as a result initiated a suit vide an originating Summons at the High Court of Adamawa State, the High Court nullified the entire election. Consequently, the Appellants have lodged an instant appeal before this Court.
HELD
Appeal allowed, Judgment of the lower is hereby set aside.
ISSUES
1. Whether the lower Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a case involving the conduct of congress to fill executive internal leadership positions of a political party.
2. Whether the Appellants are bound by the lower Court’s interim order made in another case restraining the Appellants from conducting the congress.
3. Whether the Appellant’s right to fair hearing was not breached or impaired when the trial court failed to make pronouncements on some vital points of law raised by the Appellants.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION – WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN ASSSUME JURISDICTION OVER THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A PARTY
Without much ado, it does seem to me that the lower court was right to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s suit which emanates from the 2nd Respondent’s elective congress for Mubi South LGA held on 4/9/21. The lower court, with respect, did not quite appreciate the severely limited scope of the special jurisdiction conferred on the courts in relation to the internal affairs of a political party, and thereby stretched pronouncements made in the cases relied upon beyond elastic limits. In APC V MOSES supra, the Supreme Court classified the issue of leadership and/or membership of a political party within the exclusive province of the political party and “a no-go area’’ for courts of law which are bereft of jurisdiction to delve into such matters. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA
JURISDICTION – WHEN THE COURT CAN ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER THE AFFAIRS OF A POLITICAL PARTY
The only aperture through which the court can intervene is severely circumscribed by S. 285 (14) CFRN and/or S.87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (re-enacted as S. 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022) , and it is from that narrow prism that pronouncements of courts to the effect that “the Courts will never allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as it likes (see UZODINMA V IZUNASO (2011) 17 NWLR (PT 1275) 30 at 60 – Per Rhodes – Vivour, JSC , PDP V SLYVA & 2 ORS (2012) 13 NWLR (PT 1316) 85 and PERETU V GARIGA (2013) 5 NWLR (PT 1348) at 415 at 442), or ‘’political parties must obey their own constitutions as the court will not allow them to act arbitrarily or as they like’’ [See MATO V HEMBER & ORS (2017) LPELR – 42765(SC) 1 at 47 – Per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was)] or ‘’the court would only interfere where the party has breached its own rules” [See APC V MOSES supra] must be understood. These pronouncements certainly do not constitute a carte blanche for the courts to make unrestrained incursions into the generality of internal or domestic affairs of political questions ill-suited for the courts to grabble with. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA
JURISDICTION – WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN MICRO- MANAGE POLITICAL PARTIES
The point to underscore is that the court does not preoccupy itself with micro-managing political parties: ONUOHA V. OKAFOR & ORS (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, (1983) 14 NSCC 494 and JEGEDE & ANOR V INEC & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PT. 1797) 409 at 563. The court will not be involved in deciding who members of a political party are: APGA V. ANYANWU (2014) 7 NWLR (PT. 1407) 541 at 575 and ANPP V USMAN (2008) 12 NWLR (PT. 1100) 1 at 57. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA
JURISDICTION – MATTERS WITHIN THE DOMESTIC PROVINCE OF POLITICAL PARTY AND OUTSIDE THE REMIT OF COURTS
As a corollary, the holding or conduct of political party congresses and questions bordering on membership of a political party or sponsorship of candidates are matters falling within the domestic political parties and outside the remit of the courts. See ONUOHA V OKAFOR & ORS supra, ABDULKADIR V MAMMAN (2003) 15 NWLR (PT. 839) 1 at 31 -32, DALHATU V TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (PT 843) 310 at 335 and AGUMA V APC & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PT 1796) 351 where His Lordship, Agim JSC held that a political party is a voluntary association and a member of the party has no right of action against his political party for breach of its constitution concerning its internal affairs. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA.
JURISDICTION – WHETHER OR NOT A COURT CAN ADJUDICATE ON THE PARTY NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE
The court equally lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue of which candidate a political party should nominate or sponsor for an election. LADO V CPC (2011) 18 NWLR (PT 1279) 689. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA.
JURISDICTION– WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A POLITICAL PARTY
In APC V MOSES supra, the Supreme Court classified the issue of leadership and/or membership of a political party as an internal or domestic affair of the party within the exclusive province of the political party and “a no-go area’’ for courts of law which are bereft of jurisdiction to delve into such matters. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA.
JURISDICTION – WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN EMBARK ON THE JOURNEY OF RESOLVING HYPOTHETICAL OR ACADEMIC QUESTIONS
The courts do not exist for the purpose of engaging in academic disquisitions or entertaining hypothetical matters or questions: the ivory towers or law journals and periodicals are the proper fora for such an exercise: ROLAND V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2018) LPELR- 43686 (CA) 1 at 48 – Per Oguakwu, JCA, OGBONNA V PRESIDENT F.R.N (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 504) 281, NWOBOSI V A.C.B (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 404) 658 at 681, EZEANYA V OKEKE (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 388) 142 at 165 and GLOBAL TRANSPORT OCEANICO S.A V FREE ENTERPRISES (NIG) (2001) LPELR- 1324(SC) 1 at 19 – 20. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA.
JUSTICIABILITY – WHETHER OR NOT POLITICAL QUESTIONS ARE JUSTICIABLE
Thus, questions as to who should hold political party offices and the manner of their appointment or emergence, or whether a political party can appoint its members to hold office in acting capacity or authorize a member to exercise the powers of an office in it, and/or whether it has violated its own constitution by appointing a member to hold a particular office in it or discharge the functions of that office etc are non- justiciable political questions that cannot be entertained by any court. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA
NON- PRONOUNCEMENT OF COURT ON VITAL POINTS OF LAW – ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT
I reckon that no useful, utilitarian purpose would be served by embarking on a full-scale consideration or whether the Appellants are bound by the interim order restraining the conduct of the congress made in a different case and/whether the Appellants’ right to fair hearing was compromised by the lower’s court’s alleged failure or neglect to make pronouncements on vital points of law raised by them. It is hardly necessary to state that the court does not make a practice of resolving academic or hypothetical questions that are of no practical utilitarian value to the party seeking it even if judgment is entered in his favour. See ODEDO V INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1117) 558 at 600, (2008) LPELR-2204(SC) 1 at 36-37, PLATEAU STATE V ATTORNEY – GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2006) 1 SC (PT. 1) 4 at 60, (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 968) 346 at 419, (2006) LPELR – 2921 (SC) 1 at 76-77, IMEGWU V OKOLOCHA (2013) 9 NWLR (PT. 1359) 349 and ABE V UNILORIN (2013) 16 NWLR (PT. 1379) 183. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA.
JURISDICTION – THE FIRST TEST OF THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF A COURT TO ADJUDICATE
Jurisdiction is the first of the legal authority of a court to adjudicate. The lower court had no jurisdiction to enquire into the 1st Respondent’s claim, and the entire proceedings and orders made therein constitute a nullity liable to be set aside. See MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. Per – PETER O. AFFEN, JCA
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
2. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
OTHER CITATIONS