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