PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) V. CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE (CPC) & ORS

CORAM

SYLVESTER NWALE NGWUTA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SYLVESTER NWALE NGWUTA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) AND GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN (PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA)

2. ARCHITECT MOHAMMED NAMADI SAMBO

APPELLANTS 

 CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE (CPC) & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The consolidated appeals arose from the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Holden at Abuja sitting as the Presidential Election Tribunal delivered on the 14th day of July, 2011 on a motion on notice praying the court to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter alia, that the petition was filed on a Sunday thereby rendering same incompetent. The lower court refused to grant the prayers on the motion papers as a result of which Appellants filed this appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Continued validity of the appeals.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

“SHALL” – INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD “SHALL” IN SECTION 285(7) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION

“It is clear that by the use of the word “shall” in Section 285(7) of the 1999 Constitution the framers of the constitution meant to make and did make the provision mandatory as it admits of no discretion whatsoever. It means that the sixty (60) days allotted in Section 285(7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) cannot be extended even for one second as the decision of the appellate court must be rendered “within” sixty (60) days of the delivery of the judgment on appeal. It is my further opinion that the sixty (60) days allotted in Section 285(7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) includes Saturdays, Sundays and Public holidays as well as court vacations because if it was the intention of the framers of the constitution to exclude these days they would have so stated in clear and unambiguous terms. The only exception may be where the last day of the sixty (60) days happens to be Sunday or a public holiday then the action contemplated in Section 285(7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) can be completed on the next working day – as settled by a long line of authorities.” PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – THE OBJECT OF ALL INTERPRETATIONS IS TO DISCOVER THE INTENTION OF LAW MAKERS WHICH IS DRAWN FROM THE LANGUAGE

“The object of all interpretations is to discover the intention of the law makers which is usually done from the language deployed and in this case seeing that the meaning is clear it is not for this court or any other to defeat that plain meaning of the provision by the introduction of any other words or possible meaning. When that is the case as I see it as such here and now the only road open is to give effect to that constitutional provision undiluted. In keeping with the principles above stated it is not the function of a court of law to sympathize with a party in the interpretation of a constitutional provision merely because, appellants acted timeously and due to no fault of theirs, there is an effluxion of time allotted for the hearing and final determination of the appeal.” PER PETER-ODILI, JSC

WHERE STATUTES ARE UNAMBIGOUS STATUTES MUST BE GIVEN THEIR ORDINARY MEANING.

“It is settled law that in interpreting a constitutional provision the court should adopt a broad approach to the process. Also settled is the principle that where the words of the constitution or statute are plain, clear and unambiguous, they must be given their natural, ordinary meanings as there is nothing, in effect to be interpreted.” Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen J.S.C.

THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION TO STOP DELAYS IN ELECTION MATTERS.

“The intention of the drafters of the constitution being to stop the practice of unnecessary delays in election matter, it is our duty to ensure compliance with the law by doing what is needed within the time frame. It may be difficult, in fact it is very difficult but it is a sacrifice we all must make in the interest of our democracy until our politicians learn to accept the verdict of the people as expressed through the ballot box.”
Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen J.S.C.

SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

“It is also settled law that the provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are supreme and have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria and that any other law which is inconsistent with its provisions is void to the extent of the inconsistency as the constitutional provision must prevail over such Act/law.”
Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen J.S.C.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT TO SEEK OUT THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATORS WHEN INTERPRETING STATUTES

“The basic function of every court called upon to interpret same is to seek out the intention of the Legislator as could be gathered from the provision of the statute. Same should be interpreted as it is and not as it ought to be. In strict sense, the law was enacted to avoid delays in election matters.” PER FABIYI, JSC

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – DUTY OF THE COURT TO POINT OUT EVERY INFRACTION OF THE LAW

“One has to remind himself as a judge that he is hired to interpret the laws of the country which include the constitution and statutes. Therefore once there is an infraction of the law, the court has a constitutional duty to say so. In carrying out this duty, the proper approach when faced with clear words of a constitutional provision is to follow them in their simple, grammatical and ordinary meaning rather than look further afield because that is what on the face of it is what gives them, their most reliable meaning. See Attorney- General Abia State V. Attorney – General of the Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (PT. 1005) 265; Ehuwa V. O. S. I. E. C (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1012) 544.” PER PETER-ODILI, JSC

CASES CITED

Adefemi v Abegunde (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt. 895) 1 @ 27Emeson v Nwachukwu (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 605) 163 @ 169Nigerian Army v Aminu Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 429 @ 460Nafiu Rabiu v The State (1980) 8-11 130 @ 151

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Public Holidays Act Cap. P40 L.F.N. 2004

The Interpretation act, Cap. I23, L.F.N. 2004.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.Electoral Act 2010.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT