Legalpedia Citation: (2022-09) Legalpedia 95766 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Abuja

Fri Sep 30, 2022

Suit Number: SC.CV/980/2022

CORAM

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JSC

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JSC

ADAMU JAURO JSC

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR JSC

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JSC

PARTIES

1. HON. MONDAY IYORE OSAGIE
2. HON. REUBEN IKPONMWAN EKHOSUEHI
3. HON. ADEYANBA MICHAEL OSARO
4. HON. MAGDALINE OMOSIGHO OSAWE
5. HON. IMARIAGBE DESTINY OGHOGHO (For Themselves And On Behalf Of The 576 Ad-Hoc Delegates Elected At The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Wards Congresses In 192 Wards Of Edo State On The 30th Day Of April, 2022 And Monitored By INEC)

APPELLANTS

1. VICTOR ENOGHAMA
2. CHARLES EGBON
3. ANTHONY EBHODAGHE
4. ODIGIE IDAHOSA
5. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
6. DR. IYORCHA AYU
7. SENATOR SAMUEL ANYANWU
8. HON. UMAR BATURE
9. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

ELECTORAL LAW, JURISDICTION, CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, APPEALS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of appeal sitting in Abuja, which set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja (trial court). The refusal of the National Working Committee of the 1st respondent to accept the list of ad hoc delegates purportedly elected at Ward Congresses conducted in the 192 Wards of Edo State on 30-4-2022 by the 1st respondent’s Edo State Working Committee with the Local Government and Ward Executives resulted in the suit leading to this appeal. The trial Court in its said judgment found that the Ward Congresses conducted by the 1st respondent’s Edo State Working Committee and that elected the appellants herein as ad hoc delegates is the authentic and valid ward congress and not the Ward congress conducted by the 1st respondent’s National Working Committee (NWC) instituted Ward Congress Electoral Committee for Edo State that elected the 5th to 8th respondents and others as ad hoc delegates. On the basis of this finding, it granted the claim of the appellants. The parties herein have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs to this court. At the hearing of this appeal, the 9th respondent’s brief was withdrawn and struck out.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

“Whether the Court below was right to hold that the cause of action in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/598/2022 that gave rise to this appeal is the same as the Cause of Action in Suit No. B/408/2022 as a result declined jurisdiction to consider the competence of this matter on its merit? (Ground 1, 2, and 4) ?

2. Whether the Court below was right to hold that the subject matter of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/598/2022, which gave rise to this appeal, an internal or domestic affairs of the political party (PDP) and that the trial Court has no jurisdiction over the matter? (Grounds 3 and 5) ?”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

SIGNATURE – WHO SIGNS THE RESULT SHEET ATTACHED TO THE AFFADAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN ORIGINATING SUMMONS?

It is noteworthy that each ward result sheet attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons is signed by the Ward Chairman, Ward Secretary, returning officer and INEC monitor, that the notice of holding of congress to elect 3 ward ad hoc delegates written to the Edo State Resident Electoral Commissioner on 20-4-2022, contained the venues of the respective ward congresses and the returning officer for each, that the letter is signed by the State Secretary and State Organizing Secretary, that the Local Government Area Ward Congresses Result Sheets were signed by the Local Government Chapter chairman, Secretary, Local government Area Returning Officer and INEC Local Government Area Monitoring Officer. PER – EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

POLITICAL PARTIES – WHETHER OR NOT DISPUTES OVER INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Ordinarily, political parties being voluntary associations, disputes over any of their internal affairs, particularly between the Political Party and any of its members or between members or its organs over any of its internal affair are not justiciable and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Courts except where the national Constitution or a statute expressly gives a Court such jurisdiction or the dispute is about the commission of a crime or involves the violation of a contractual right or the commission of a tort. This law is settled by repeated decisions of this Court in Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244 at 254, Chief Jude Okeke v. APGA & Ors (SC/CV/686/2021 & SC/CV/687/2021 delivered on 14-10-2021), Amaechi v. INEC (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 504, Igo Aguma v. APC (SC.217) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1555), Dahiru v. APC (201 218 AT 243, Ufomba v. INEC (2017) 13 NWLR Pt 1582 175, Sheriff v. PDP (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1585) 212 at 318-39. Agi v. PDP (LPELR) 42578 (SC), Dalhatu v. Turaki, Uzodinma v. Izunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1275) 30, PDP v. Sylva (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85, Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556 and several other cases. PER – EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C

JURISDICTION – THE NARROW JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT TO DETERMINE DISPUTE OVER AN ASPECT OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES

1. 84 (14) of the Electoral Act 2022, following a similar provision in S.87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, vests a very narrow original jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to entertain and determine a dispute over an aspect of the internal affair of a political party concerning whether the provisions of the Electoral Act and the guidelines of a political party were complied with in the selection or nomination of its candidate for election. This is the only part of the internal affair of a Political Party that a Court has jurisdiction to inquire into. The exact text of the provision reads thusly –

“Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.”

As this Court held in Emenike V PDP & Ors (2012) LPELR-7802(SC) applying similar provisions in S.87(4)(b) and (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, held that

“The Courts have no power to compel a political party to sponsor a candidate outside the thin and limited powers conferred under Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The jurisdiction of the Court relates to whether complaints in respect of primary election for nomination of a candidate were conducted in line with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the party’s constitution and the party’s guidelines.”

PER – EM.MANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C

POLITICAL PARTY – WHAT FORMS PART OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A POLITICAL PARTY?

Therefore, by virtue of S.84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022, compliance with all the

principles, processes and procedures prescribed in the constitution and electoral guidelines of a political party for the selection or nomination of its candidate for an election becomes part of the internal affairs of a political party that a Court has jurisdiction to consider in a pending suit by an aspirant complaining against such selection or nomination to determine if it is in accordance with its constitution and guidelines. In addition to giving the Federal High Court jurisdiction over this aspect of the internal affairs of a political party, it also makes it a legal cause of action, creates a legal right of action for such cause and vests the right of action in an aspirant. PER – EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

RIGHT OF ACTION – WHAT CREATES A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR AN ASPIRANT

It is the selection of the party’s candidate in a primary election without complying with the Electoral Act and the party guidelines that create the cause of action under S.84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022 and vesting in an aspirant a right of action for redress. PER – EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

PRIMARY ELECTION – NO RIGHT OF ACTION CONCERNING A PRIMARY ELECTION EXISTS WHERE NO PRIMARY ELECTION WAS HELD AND NO CANDIDATE ELECTED

In this case, no primary election had been held before the suit was filed and no candidate had been elected from any primary election contrary to the Electoral Act, the party constitution and guidelines. So, there was no cause for an action under S.84(14) of the Electoral Act. The appellants not being aspirants in any primary election that had selected a candidate of the party for an election contrary to the Electoral Act or the Party guidelines, have no right of action concerning any such primary election. PER – EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

RIGHT OF ACTION – WHETHER OR NOT DELEGATES ELECTED TO VOTE IN A PRIMARY ELECTION HAVE THE RIGHT OF ACTION

There is no law that gives delegates elected to vote in a primary election of candidates of a political party for a general election, the right of action to protect or preserve their status as such delegates or protect their right to vote during such primary elections. The refusal of their political party to recognize them as such delegates or to allow them vote in a primary election to elect the party’s candidates, would not give such delegates legal cause for action. But such refusal can create a legal cause of action by an aspirant in the primary election after a candidate has been selected under S.84(14) of the Electoral Act. PER – EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

POLITICAL PARTY – WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A POLITICAL PARTY

In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the Court of Appeal correctly held that the subject matter of the suit leading to this appeal is an internal affair of the 1st respondent that can be resolved only by its internal mechanisms. The Court of Appeal correctly held that it is non-justiciable and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court and that the trial Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit before it. The Court of Appeal rightly set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on 26-5-2032 in Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/598/2022. Having determined that the Court of Appeal rightly held that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction over this matter, no useful purpose would be served considering and determining the other issues in this case. PER – EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING AND FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF LOCUS STANDI

Now, Locus standi is latin for “place of standing”, and it simply means – “the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. See Thomas V. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669, wherein Obaseki, JSC, reiterated the point he made in Senator Adesanya V. President, FRN and Anor. (1981) 2 SCNLR 358 that “the fundamental aspect of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before the High Court not on the issue he wishes to have adjudicated”. In other words, the person instituting an action before a Court of law must have legal capacity, otherwise, the Court is robbed of the necessary jurisdiction to entertain same. PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

POLITICAL PARTY – THE RULE THAT COURTS CANNOT PRESIDE ON CASES CHALLENGING POLITICAL PARTY SELECTION OF CANDIDATES AND ITS EXCEPTIONS

This is, clearly, a pre-primary matter. Nigerian jurisprudence exclusively vests nomination of candidates for political offices on political parties, therefore, as a general rule, the Courts have found that the cases challenging the political party’s selection or nomination of its electoral candidate raise an intra-party question over which Courts cannot preside. However, the Electoral Act 2022, presents two limited exceptions to this general rule. First, under Section 29(5):

Any aspirant, who participated in the primaries of his political party, who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by his political party’s candidate in the affidavit or any documents submitted by that candidate in relation to his constitutional requirements to contest the election is false, may file a suit at the Federal High Court against that candidate seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.

Secondly, and more importantly, as far as this particular appeal is concerned, under Section 84(14)

“an aspirant, who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress”. In other words, in the two exceptions, it is only an “aspirant” that has standing to challenge the result of the primaries. PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C

 

 

ASPIRANT – WHO IS AN ASPIRANT?

Section 152 defines an “aspirant” as “a person, who aspires or seeks or strives to contest an election to a political office”, and it is clear in this case that there is no aspirant involved in the suit filed at the trial Court because one of the questions raised in the Originating Summons commencing the suit is –

Whether upon proper construction of the provisions of Article 15(2)(e) of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant (as amended) in 2017), Article 1(b)(i) of Part I and Article (xii) of Part II (page 9) of the Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections of 13/3/2022 of the 1st Defendant as well as Section 84(5)(a) – (c) and (8) of the Electoral Act, 2022, a person, who was not duly elected at the Ward’s Congress of the 1st Defendant, can be presented by the 1st Defendant as an Ad-Hoc Delegate? PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C

 

PRE-PRIMARY MATTERS – THE LIMITATION OF THE COURT TO COMPLAINT ABOUT CONDUCT OF THE PRIMARIES FOR THE NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE

This Court in a plethora of cases has said that pre-primary matters are within the domestic and internal affairs of the PDP, which no Court has jurisdiction to entertain. The jurisdiction of the Court in party affairs is limited to where the complaint is about the conduct of the primaries for the selection/nomination of a candidate. For example, if a candidate complains of rigging or similar malpractice, a Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint… Jurisdiction is conferred on the Courts to hear complaints from an aggrieved member of the party, who took part in the primaries. PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C

POLITICAL PARTY – A PARTY IS SUPREME OVER ITS OWN AFFAIRS

In other words, the appellants rushed to Court because they were afraid that they would not be allowed to vote as Ad-Hoc Delegates at primaries that had not yet been conducted by the Party, which makes it a pre-primary matter, and one that is squarely within the domestic or internal affairs of a political party -see Ardo V. Nyako (supra). See also Agi V. PDP & Ors (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386 wherein this Court per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, also explained that:

A party is supreme over its own affairs… A party is like a club. A voluntary association. It has its rules, regulations, guidelines and Constitution. Members join the party of their own free will. By joining, they have freely given their consent to be bound by its rules, regulations, guidelines and Constitution of the party. These rules of the party must be obeyed by all the members of the party, as the party’s decision is final over its own affairs. Members of a party would do well to understand and appreciate the finality of a party’s decision over its domestic or internal affairs. PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C

 

POLITICAL PARTY – THERE IS A LIMIT TO WHICH THE COURTS CAN POKE NOSE INTO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A POLITICAL PARTY

It has been argued that political parties cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the rights of its members, therefore, the Courts must intervene whenever there is a complaint touching on the fundamental rights of members of a party.

My own take is that there is a limit to which the Courts can be allowed to poke nose into the domestic or internal affairs of a political party, or else the Courts may end up having to micromanage every facet of the electoral process. PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C

 

LEGAL RIGHT FOR REDRESS – WHO HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO APPLY TO THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT FOR REDRESS

As it is, it is only an aspirant, who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral Act and Guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, that is allowed to “to apply to the Federal High Court for redress”; no one else. PER – AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C

RIGHT OF LEGAL ACTION – THE COGNIZABLE RIGHT OF ACTION AS PROVIDED BY THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2022.

The cognizable right of legal action provided for under the Electoral Act for compliant against failure of political parties to comply with their constitution, rules and guideline or even the Electoral Act, is one in respect of the process or conduct of party primaries, congresses or conventions for the purpose of selecting, nominating or electing candidates to be sponsored by the parties to contest elections. The right of action in such circumstances is created, provided for and vested in or by the provisions of Section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which provides thus:-

“84 (14). Notwithstanding, the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.”

These provisions very clearly, created a right of action in respect of complaints arising from or out of the conduct of party primaries for the purpose of selecting or nominating candidates from among aspirants, who aspire, seek or strive to contest an election to a political office, to be sponsored by the party to contest the said election. PER – MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

PARTY PRIMARIES – THE RATIONALE FOR THE CONDUCT OF PARTY PRIMARIES

Because party primaries are not free for all members of the parties, they are conducted for aspirants who have met all the criteria and requirements put in place by the parties for the purpose and the right of legal action on grievances or complaints in the conduct of the primaries is vested on “an aspirant” who actually participated and contested in the primaries for selection or nomination of the candidates. PER – MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

POLITICAL PARTIES – WHETHER OR NOT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE IN DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere or meddle in the domestic affairs of political parties. See UFOMBA V. INEC & ORS (2017) LPELR- 42079 (SC); AGI V. PDP & ORS (2016) LPELR – 42578 (SC); ARDO V. NYAKO (2014) 10 NWLR (PT. 1416) 591; PDP V. SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (PT. 1316) 85. PER – ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

POLITICAL PARTIES – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE CLOTH WILL BE CLOTHED WITH JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A POLITICAL PARTY

The circumstances under which a Court is clothed with jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of a political party are provided for in Sections 29(5) and 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022. The two sections clearly provide that such an action can only be instituted by an “aspirant”. In other words, in order for a suit on the internal affairs of a political party to be actionable, the person who seeks to air his grievance(s) must be an aspirant and his complaint must fall within the scope of Sections 29(5) or 84(14) of the Electoral Act.

Section 152 of the Electoral Act defines an aspirant as “a person who aspires or seeks or strives to contest an election to a political office”. The appellants herein are clearly not aspirants, but acclaimed ad-hoc delegates. They have therefore not been able to scale the first hurdle. That being the case, the trial Court was bereft of jurisdiction to entertain their claim. PER – ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Not Available

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT