Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 99117 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tue Mar 7, 2023

Suit Number: SC.CV/176/2023

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji JSC

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

PARTIES

IBRAHIM SANI

APPELLANTS

HON. SANI UMAR DAN GALADIMA & ORS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION PETITION, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and 1^st first Respondent were aspirants in the 4^th respondent’s primary election for the position of Member of House of Representative for Kaura Namoda/Birnin Magaji Federal Constituency in Zamfara State. The executive of Shiyar Galadima Birnin Magaji Ward wrote a petition to the Zamfara State House of Representatives Screening Committee contending that the 1st respondent herein is not a registered member of the 4th respondent and should not be cleared to contest the said on-coming primary election of 23-5-2022. The said Screening Committee cleared him as eligible to contest the primary election inspite of the said petition.

​The primary election held on the 23-5-2022. The 1st respondent herein scored majority of the votes cast and was declared winner of the election by the 4th respondent. The appellant and the 2nd respondent herein through their legal practitioners appealed against the primary election to the 4th respondent’s National Assembly Electoral Appeal panel for Zamfara State on the grounds inter alia that the 1st respondent was not eligible to contest the primary election because he is not a registered member of the 4th respondent. The first respondent also happened to be a serving member of the house of reps under a different party (APC).

The 2^nd Respondent took his grievances to court.

The 1st and 3rd respondents as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively filed notices of preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the trial Court on the grounds inter alia that the suit is statute-barred and that the dispute is not justiciable as it concerns membership of the party, an internal affair of the party.

The trial court entered judgment in favour of the 2^nd Respondent while the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the trial court and upheld the appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø 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.

Ø the failure of the appellant to appeal against the part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal that faulted the trial Court’s nullification of the waiver granted the 1st respondent as not supported by the depositions in the affidavit in support of the originating summons and its decision that the 1st respondent who was elected to the House of Representatives on the platform of PDP before he defected to APC had now returned to PDP as a member

RATIONES DECIDENDI

INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES ARE WHOLLY SUBJECT TO THE PARTY EXCEPT IN THE NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION

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 constitution and the party guidelines.”

Following its decision above cited, this Court recently in OSAGIE & 4 ORS V. VICTOR ENOGHAMA & Anor (30-9-2022 in SC/CV/980/2022) held that “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 the 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.”

So that any part of the internal affairs of a political party that the Party Guidelines or Constitution has made a requirement for the election of its candidate for an election comes within the matters the Court can consider in the exercise of its jurisdiction over a complain that the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election did not comply with its guidelines and the Electoral Act. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

MEMBERSHIP – MINIMUM PERIOD OF ONE MONTH MEMBERSHIP TO STAND FOR ELECTION

This provision of the Party Constitution having made membership for a minimum period of one month a requirement for eligibility to stand election in the party, it is a matter within the narrow jurisdiction given to the Federal High Court by S.84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022. So that, even though, membership of a political party is ordinarily an internal affair of the party that is not justiciable and therefore not subject to a Court’s jurisdiction, Article 50(4) of the PDP has by making it part of its requirement to be candidate of a party brought it within the jurisdiction given to the Court by S.84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022. – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

APPEAL – FAILURE TO APPEAL THE FINDING AND HOLDING OF A COURT

I agree with the argument of learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the appellant by not appealing against the said finding and holding of the Court of Appeal accepted them as correct, conclusive, and binding upon it and cannot therefore argue to the contrary. See Biariko & Ors V Edeh-Ogwuile & Ors (2001) 4 SC (Pt.ii) 96, Dabup V Kolo (1993) 12 SCNJ 1 and NBCI V Integrated Gas Nig Ltd & Anor (2005) LPELR-2016(SC). – Per E. A. Agim, JSC

INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTY – INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES ARE WHOLLY SUBJECT TO THE PARTY EXCEPT IN THE NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION

By the provisions of Section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022, providing for non-compliance with “the provision of this Act and the guidelines of a political party in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election”, the issue of eligibility for membership of a political party cannot be a matter for the Federal High Court to consider since it is outrightly outside what the Act provides for a cause of action or ground for redress in Court. It squarely falls within the internal affairs of a political party that only the political party should handle or settle and not the Court of law.

Section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act 2022, vests a very narrow original jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to entertain and determine a dispute over an aspect of the internal affairs 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. See Per AGIM, JSC, in OSAGIE & ORS V. ENOGHAMA & ORS (2022) LPELR-58903(SC) (PP. 17-19 PARAS. D-D). A political party is supreme over its own affairs and a Court of law has no jurisdiction to question the exercise of its discretion, one way or the other. See Per OKORO, JSC, in SULAIMAN & ORS V. APC & ORS (2022) LPELR-S8846(SC) (PP. 25-26 PARAS. F). ­– Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) 2017
2.  Electoral Act 2022
3. Electoral Guidelines for the conduct of Primary Elections of People’s Democratic Party
4. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
5. Constitution of All Progressives Congress (2014) (as amended)

 CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT