CORAM
John Inyang Okoro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
1. HIGH CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)
APPELLANTS
1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
2. LABOUR PARTY (LP)
3. DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI
4. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
5. CHIEF AMBROSE OKECHUKWU AHIWE
6. YOUNG PROGRESSIVES PARTY
7. HON. CHIMA ENYINNAYA NWAFOR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION PETITION, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Appellant as petitioner was sponsored by his party, the 2nd Appellant and petitioner, All Progressive Congress (APC), to contest the Governorship Election of Abia State held on the 18th day of March, 2023. The 1st Respondent, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), conducted the Election. The 2nd Respondent, Labour Party, sponsored its candidate, the 3rd Respondent, Dr. Alex Chioma Otti. The 4th Respondent, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), sponsored its candidate, the 5th Respondent, Ambrose Okechukwu Ahiwe, while the 6th Respondent, Young Progressive Party (YPP), sponsored its candidate, the 7th Respondent, Hon. Enyinaya Nwafor. There were fifteen (15) other political parties and their respective candidates that also participated in the election of 18th day of March, 2023.
At the conclusion of the Election, the 1st Respondent (INEC) returned the 3rd Respondent as duly elected with majority of lawful votes cast at the election. The Appellants, who came 4th in the election with 24,091 votes, felt aggrieved with the declaration of the 3rd Respondent as winner of the election by the 1st Respondent and challenged the declaration by filing a Petition at the Registry of the Tribunal on the 11th day of April, 2023, on two grounds.
The Tribunal delivered its judgments on the 6th day of October, 2023, where it upheld the objections of the Respondents that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into nomination and memberships of the 2nd Respondent and that the Petitioners/Appellants lacked the locus standi to challenge same. It equally held that the Appellants failed to prove their second ground of the Petition to wit: that the 3rd Respondent was not elected with majority of lawful votes cast at the Governorship Election held on the 18th day of March, 2023, having failed to lead evidence on same.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal after on the 15th day of November, 2023, delivered its decision on the 2nd December, 2023, dismissing the appeal and awarding 1,000,000 against the Appellants.
Still dissatisfied, the Appellants have approached this Court on appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Was the lower Court’s treatment of Appellants’ appeal on the THRESHOLD ISSUE OF COMPETENCE that is, LOCUS STANDI CORRECT?
2. Was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that the Petitioners did not establish that the 3rd, 5th and 7th Respondents were not qualified to contest the election of 18/3/2023 under reference in this case?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ACADEMIC ISSUE – CONDUCT OF COURTS TO ACADEMIC ISSUES
Aside that the issues are repetitive, it is an abuse of Court process to pursue and bird-dog such an academic appeal, that the outcome will have no utilitarian value to the Appellants, nor any purpose to achieve in our electoral and democratic system. Besides, it is a concurrent decision that stands without any iota of perverseness in it. – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC
ACADEMIC APPEAL – MEANING OF ACADEMIC APPEAL – CONDUCT OF COURTS TO ACADEMIC APPEALS
This Court, Per ABBA AJI, JSC, considered what an academic and hypothetical appeal means, in APC V. ENWEREM & ORS (PP. 23-24 PARAS. C):
which has been overcome by events is to go into futility. This is what the Court considers an academic appeal since no useful or future outcome can he obtained from it. A suit is academic where it is thereby theoretical, makes empty sound and of no practical utilitarian value to a party eve, if judgment is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situation of human nature and humanity. Once a suit no longer has live issues for determination, such a suit is academic and a Court should on no account spend judicial time or engage in academic exercise. Courts are to determine live issues. See Per GALUMJE JSC, in ANYANWU V. EZE & ORS (2019) LPELR-48740(SC) (PP. 8 – 9 PARAS. A). My learned brother declared in the lead judgment, “Granting the Appellant’s application to appeal against the judgment delivered in the absence of jurisdiction is unreasonable and confers no utilitarian value… enquiring into the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s decision is tantamount to a futile exercise of trying to draw water from, an empty well. – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC
COUNSELS – CONDUCT OF COUNSELS IN ADJUDICATION OR ON APPEAL
Counsel must note that this Court is probably the busiest Supreme Court in the world and as such, splitting of appeals to give more work to the Justices should not be encouraged. A word is enough for the wise. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC
ACADEMIC ISSUE – DESCRIPTION OF AN ACADEMIC ISSUE – WHERE RESOLVING AN ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE PARTY WHO RAISED SAME WILL NOT AFFECT THE APPEAL
No doubt, the Appellant had a right of appeal against the interlocutory decision and the decision on the merit. However, when the determination of an issue in favour of a party who raised it will not affect the result of the appeal, the issue is of no value. See OKEREKE v. NWANKWO (2003) 9 NWLR pt. 826 pg. 592. It would be an academic and useless venture as the adventure on this point in the circumstances of this appeal. See ARDO V. INEC (SUPRA), ODEDO v. INEC (SUPRA), UGBA v. SUSWAN (SUPRA), IBRAHIM v. ABDALLAH (2019) LPELR- 48984 (SC), APC v. ENWEREM (2022) LPELR-57816 (SC), ODEY v. APC (2023) LPELR-60044(SC).
For example, the issue of the preliminary objectives raised and upheld by the Tribunal would have been of utmost importance where the tribunal terminated the hearing after upholding the objections of the Respondents to Ground 1 of the petition. At the hearing of the preliminary objection at the apex Court, the success of such an objection terminates the appeal as it is always considered before determining the appeal. See EKEMEZIE v. IFEANACHO & ORS (2019) LPELR-46518 (SC).
The trite principle of law is that an issue that is not crucial in an appeal, and which even if determined in favour of a party may not end the controversy, ought not to be formulated for determination on the appeal. It may serve no purpose, even if the complaint is upheld in favour of the Appellants. See EHIMARE v. EMHONYON (1985) 2 SC 49. When the determination of an issue in favour of the party who raised it will not affect the result of an appeal, the issue is of no value. See OKEREKE v. NWANKWO (2003) SUPRA.
See also OVIVIE v. DELTA STATE CO. LTD (2023) LPELR- 60460 (SC) where this Court concluded thus:
“My Lords, it has long been settled that where issues are found not to be crucial, but are merely theoretical and of no practical utilitarian value, pronouncing on same will be an exercise in futility and failure to do so cannot have any effect on the decision of the Court, particularly, if there would be no miscarriage of justice. Their determination would, therefore, make no practical or tangible addition to the outcome of the matter or to the decision of the lower Court being appealed against. Issues two and four before the lower Court fall into this category”. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC
STARE DECISIS – CONDUCT OF COURTS REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
In JEGEDE v. INEC (2021) 14 NWLR (PT. 1797) PG. 409, Agim JSC concluded thus:
“This Court is bound by its decision above in keeping with the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court of Appeal decision that paragraph 12 of the petition if read together with other paragraphs of the petition challenging the validity of the sponsorship, does not amount to an admission that the 1st Respondent was in fact sponsored by the 2nd Respondent is wrong. It therefore wrongly set aside the decision of the Election Tribunal that is an admission of the fact that 2nd Respondent sponsored the 1st Respondent. The said decision of the trial Court is hereby restored”. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC
ELECTION – DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES POST-ELECTION MATTERS AND WHAT CONSTITUTES PRE-ELECTION MATTERS
For the Appellants to succeed in this grossly speculative argument, they must produce a statutory provision to the effect that a person’s membership in a party is determined by the presence of his or her name in the Register of Members, thirty (30) days before the primaries. There is no such law in existence and such far reaching postulation cannot be endorsed on mere argument and rationalization, no matter how passionate the Appellants’ discontent may be.
I could not have put the reasoning on this issue better than Abiru JCA when he held at page 3511-3512 of the Record.
“Where the challenge is that the candidate was not a member of the political party and was not sponsored by the political party as its candidate in the election for Governor as required by Section 177(c) of the 1999 Constitution, it is a post-election matter. But where the challenge to the qualification of a candidate for election is predicated on the validity of his nomination process by his political party vis-a-vis the provisions of the Electoral Act, it is a pre- election matter- JEGEDE v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2021) 14 NWLR (PT. 1797) 409, ACTION PEOPLES PARTY v. OBASEKI (2022) 13 NWLR (PT.1846) 1 @ 45, FALEKE v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2022) 13 NWLR (PT. 1543) 61, ONI v. OYEBANJI (2023) LPELR-60699 (SC). – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC
COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN DETERMINING WHAT FORMS THE CASE OF THE PARTY
It is an established rule of adjudication that in determining the case made by a party, a Court must read all the paragraphs of the pleadings of the party together to get a flowing story of the party and not a few paragraphs in isolation and it is the totality of the pleadings that states “the case of the party.” – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC
DEMOCRACY – MEANING AND ROOT OF THE WORD DEMOCRACY – RESPONSIBILITY OF EVERY PLAYER IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM
I am compelled to re-echo and adopt wholesome as mine the views expressed in the erudite judgment of Abiru JCA on page 3521 – 3522 of the record where his Lordship stated as follows:
“…The term democracy comes from the Greek language and it means ”rule by the (simple) people”. Democracy, as defined by the dictionary, is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly of them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. Therefore, in every election, it is the wish and desire of the majority of the voters that must always be the determining factor. Any electoral system that subsumes, under any guise, the wishes of the majority in choosing the representatives of the people cannot be said to be democratic and fair.
It is thus the responsibility of every player in the election process or electoral system of any democratic government, be he a participant, an organizer, a supervisor or in whatever capacity, to make laws, work the laws, operate the laws and interpret the laws in such a way that they enthrone at every stage of the process the desires and wishes of the majority of the electorate. These are the higher ideals of the democratic process and it by so doing that the democratic ideal can be advanced and deepened in the society. It is hoped that the Appellants and their lawyers will learn to live by these higher ideals of the democratic process”. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Electoral Act, 2022