Delta PDP in Limbo as Edevbie Files Appeal

With the decision of David Edevbie to proceed to the Supreme Court with an appeal to challenge the Court of Appeal decision setting aside his victory at the High Court, the Peoples Democratic Party in Delta State has to wait for a final decision on who its authentic governorship candidate is, Alex Enumah examines the grounds of appeal

Two weeks after the Court of Appeal set aside his victory at the Federal High Court in respect of his quest to seek the governorship ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Delta State, Mr. David Edevbie, has asked the Supreme Court to re-affirm his candidacy in the 2023 election.

Edevbie in a 23-ground of appeal faulted the unanimous decisions of the three-man panel of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Peter Ige. He, consequently, asked the apex court to hold that he is the rightful candidate of the PDP in the governorship election slated for February next year.

Recall that after the victory of the Sheriff Oborevwori in the governorship primary election held in the state on May 25, 2022, Edevbie, a former Commissioner for Finance, who felt aggrieved, had gone to the Federal High Court in Abuja to contest the credentials Oborevwori submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). In suit FHC/ABJ/795/2022, he alleged that they dicuments were forged.

In his judgment, Justice Taiwo Taiwo on July 7, 2022, disqualified Oborevwori who is also the Speaker of the state House of Assembly. The court ordered INEC and the PDP to recognise Edevbie as the candidate of the party in the election.

The trial judge agreed with Edevbie that Oborevwori ought not to be on the ballot for the PDP primary election on account of supplying false and forged documents to INEC to aid his qualification for the governorship election.

But not satisfied with the judgment, Oborevwori and the PDP headed to the Court of Appeal to seek redress. In an 18-ground of appeal, they urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment. They stated that Justice Taiwo misdirected himself in law when he assumed jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the plaintiff, predicated on section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, before the submission of his name (the appellant’s) to INEC.

Oborevwori specifically faulted Justice Taiwo for allegedly ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Modibbo Vs Usman (2020) 3 NWLR (PT. 1712) 470, in which he claimed that the apex court held that Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which was the same with Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010, had settled the law that cause of action only arose when the name of a candidate was submitted and published.

He said: “The trial judge side-tracked the decision of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal contrary to the established doctrine of stare decisis and by his decision overruling the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

“The first respondent (Edevbie) on oath admitted that the name of the appellant was yet to be submitted and the trial court held that the first respondent by law, need not wait for the publication of the name of the appellant by INEC.”

Oborevwori argued that it was in the law that information about a candidate’s qualification could only be challenged after the political party sponsoring the candidate submitted the name and INEC published the name and the accompanying affidavit.

He further contended that the trial judge misdirected himself in law when he agreed with Edevbie that he (appellant) failed to meet the constitutional requirement of Sections 177 (a) and 182(1)(J) of the 1999 Constitution and that his certificates were forged.

At the hearing of the appeal, Edevbie’s lawyer, Ejembi Eko (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and affirm the decision of the lower court which disqualified the appellant.

On his part, Oborevwori’s counsel, Damian Dodo (SAN), adopted his brief of argument, and urged the court to accept the appeal and grant all the reliefs sought, including setting aside the July 7 judgment.

In its verdict, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the lower court. The three-member panel of appellate court, led by Justice Peter Ige, held that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to have entertained the suit filed by Edevbie on the grounds that the cause of action had not crystallised when the suit was filed.

While holding that the suit was premature, the appellate court added that the plaintiff ought to have waited for the PDP to forward the name of Oborevwori to INEC as its candidate in the 2023 governorship election in Delta State.

Justice Ige noted that while Justice Taiwo acknowledged that the name of Oborevwori has not been forwarded to INEC as PDP’s candidate he erroneously held that the plaintiff need not wait for crystalisation of the process before going to court.

On the alleged discrepancies in the names on the certificates presented by Oborevwori, Justice Ige held that Edevbie did not only fail to prove that the names were not those of Oborevwori but also failed to show who owns those names.

He held that it was not enough to prove that the certificates and other documents were forged, but the plaintiff must prove that it was the defendant himself who forged the said certificates and other documents. He observed that even the lower court observed that neither Oborevwori nor the PDP breached the party’s guidelines as well as the Electoral Act as regards the selection and nomination of its candidate for the 2023 governorship election in Delta State.

He further upheld the appellant’s contention that the suit filed by Edevbie was wrongly initiated, because allegations of criminal offences must be proven beyond affidavit evidences. He noted that Edevbie ought to have called the institutions he claimed their certificates were forged to prove his allegations, adding that the forged certificates and other documents must be presented before the court to substantiate the allegations.

The appellate court reasoned that the 1st respondent filed the suit at a time the name of the appellant had not been forwarded by PDP and announced by INEC as candidate of the party for Delta State governorship election in 2023.

“An aspirant can only challenge a candidate in court when INEC releases names of candidates for a particular election. The name of the candidate had not been forwarded to INEC by the PDP”, Justice Ige noted, adding that “Section 29(5) of Electoral Act was misconstrued by the trial court”.

“Having resolved issues 1, 2, 4 and 5 in favour of the appellant, the appeal has merit and is bound to succeed. The judgment of the lower court, delivered by Justice Taiwo, is hereby set aside,” Justice Ige said.

The appellant court also allowed a similar appeal filed by the PDP on the same issue.

The judgement of the Appeal Court had come under fire with many lawyers feeling that the panel did not do enough justice to the case. They faulted Justice Ige for holding that it was not enough for Edevbie to say that Oborevwori’s certificates and other documents were forged, but he must prove beyond reasonable that it was the defendant himself who forged the said certificates and other documents. They argued that the case is not a criminal matter but a civil and electoral matter which should have been treated as such.

They further faulted Justice Ige for holding that Oborevwori’s name had not yet been forwarded to INEC as PDP’s candidate and that Edevbie ought to have waited for crystalisation of the process before going to court.

For these reasons, they urged Edevbie to proceed to the Supreme Court in order to enrich the country’s jurisprudence.

This, perhaps prompted him to file a 23-ground of appeal before the Supreme Court, faulting the decisions of the three-man panel of the Court of Appeal. In ground 3 of the appeal, he claimed that the appellate court erred in law when it held that his suit “at the trial court was not cognisable as an originating summons action”.

According to his lawyer, Mr Ejembi Eko (SAN), Order 3, Rules 6 of the Federal High Court Rules 2019, mandated that suit seeking the interpretation of any statute/ instrument and the determination of any question based on same should be via originating summons.

Appellant further submitted that the pre-election practice direction of the Federal High Court 2022 mandated that “all pre-election matters such as the instant suit as presented before the lower trial court should be by originating summons.

Also, the former Commissioner for Fanance submitted that contrary to the claim of the appellate court that the case of PDP and others versus Degi-Eremenyo and others of 2020 had been “superceded” by the Supreme Court and that same did not apply to the narrow facts of the instant case, the case is still extant and has not been overruled by the apex court.

The appellant also disagreed with the ruling of the lower court that his case “had not crystalised and was premature” when it was filed. He argued that as an aspirant, the law stipulated that any complaint he had relating and arising from participating in a party’s primary must be ventilated within 14 days, adding that the cause of action of his case accrued within the 14 days allowed by Section 285 (14) of the Constitution .

He further faulted the decision of the appellate court which held that there was no cause of action under Section 84 of the Electoral Act, claiming that the cause of action was that the 1st respondent did not possess the minimum requirements to participate in the election as stated by Section 177 of the Constitution.

On proving the allegations “beyond reasonable doubt”, Edevbie argued that”there is no principle of law that proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be achieved by documentary evidence alone”, adding that the standard proof of presentation of false/fake or forged documents in an election matter is distinct from the standard proof in a strict civil or criminal action.

He further claimed that the Court of Appeal erred when they concluded that failure to call evidence from the institutions that issued certificates and other impugned documents was fatal to the case because the 1st respondent never denied ownership of the documents and affidavits pleaded against him.