SENATOR HOSEA EHINLANWO V CHIEF OLUSOLA - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

SENATOR HOSEA EHINLANWO V CHIEF OLUSOLA

OKOLO OCHEMAJE V THE STATE
May 28, 2025
ALHAJI A.B. ABUBAKAR V ALHAJI ABUBAKAR DANIYA WAZIRI & 3 ORS
May 28, 2025
OKOLO OCHEMAJE V THE STATE
May 28, 2025
ALHAJI A.B. ABUBAKAR V ALHAJI ABUBAKAR DANIYA WAZIRI & 3 ORS
May 28, 2025
Show all

SENATOR HOSEA EHINLANWO V CHIEF OLUSOLA

Legalpedia Citation: (2008-06) Legalpedia (SC) 12416

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jun 27, 2008

Suit Number: SC. 291/2007

CORAM


DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


SENATOR HOSEA EHINLANWO. APPELLANTS


CHIEF OLUSOLA

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant’s name was substituted for the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent without cogent and verifiable reason. The 1st respondent claimed he won the primary election of the party.


HELD


The court allowed the appeal.


ISSUES


1. Having regard to the decision of this Honourable Court in Onuoha v. Okafor; Dalhatu v. Turaki; Ugwu v. Ararume, Amaechi v. INEC, the PDP Constitution and Electoral Guidelines and the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006 whether the 2nd respondent (The Peoples Democratic Party) has a right to nominate the appellant, and did in fact nominate the appellant despite the fact that the 1st respondent won the primaries?

2. Having forwarded the name of the appellant, whether the 2nd respondent (PDP) has provided any cogent and verifiable reasons (s) to warrant the purported substitution in compliance with S.34(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006.

3. Whether having regard to the legal requirements of the provisions of Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2006, the 1st respondent has proved the existence of a nomination that is capable of being illegally supplanted.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


THE POWER OF A POLITICAL PARTY TO SPONSOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIONS IS LIMITED ONLY BY SECTION 34(2) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2006


A political party has the unfettered right to nominate or sponsor a candidate it likes for any election and the courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into that issue except in circumstances as decided in the case of Ugwu v. Ararume and the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006. The above exception has to do with substitution of a candidate already nominated and submitted to INEC 120 days to the election in which case the substitution must be done 60 days to the election and the political party intending the change or substitution of the nominated candidate must give cogent and verifiable reasons before the change or substitution can be effected –Onnoghen J.S.C


CASES CITED


1. Amaechi v. INEC & Ors. (2008) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1080) 229, (2008) 1 SCM, 26
2. Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 S.C. N.L.R. 244
3. Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367, (2007) 12 (Pt.2) SCM, 646


STATUTES REFERRED TO


The Electoral Act 2006


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.