Political Party’s Locus to Challenge Candidate’s Nomination Under Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 26th day of May, 2023
Before Their Lordships
John Inyang Okoro
Amina Adamu Augie
Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju
Adamu Jauro
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/CV/501/2023
Between
PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) APPELLANT
And
1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)
3. BOLA TINUBU
4. SHETTIMA KASSIM RESPONDENTS
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Adamu Jauro, JSC)
Facts
On 28th July, 2022, the Appellant filed an Originating Summons before Federal High Court seeking inter alia, the determination of whether by virtue of Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022, the 4th Respondent is not disqualified from contesting the Presidential election scheduled to hold on 25th February, 2023, having allowed himself to be nominated by the 2nd Respondent to contest for the position of Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria after having also been nominated as the 2nd Respondent’s candidate to the office of the Senator representing Borno Central Senatorial District. It alleged that the 4th Respondent was still the 2nd Respondent’s candidate for Borno Central Senatorial District as at 14th July, 2022 when he accepted his nomination as the party’s candidate for the position of the Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Appellant sought inter alia, a declaration that the nomination of the 4th Respondent is void, on the ground of multiple nominations. It also sought an order disqualifying the 2nd to 3rd Respondent from contesting the Presidential election, and an order nullifying the nomination of the 3rd and 4th Respondents to participate as the 2nd Respondent’s candidates for the 2023 Presidential election.
The claim was denied by the 2nd to 4th Respondent, who asserted that the 4th Respondent had withdrawn his candidacy as the 2nd Respondent’s Senatorial candidate by a letter dated 6th July, 2022, prior to his nomination as the 2nd Respondent’s candidate for the position of Vice President.
All the Respondents filed Notices of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court on the basis that the suit was statute barred, that the Appellant lacked locus standi; and that the suit was an abuse of court process. The objections were heard together with the substantive Originating Summons.
In its judgement, the trial court held that Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution does not permit a political party to interfere in the internal affairs of another party, and since the Appellant was neither a member of the 2nd Respondent nor an aspirant in its primary election, it lacked the locus standi to institute the action. The trial court upheld the objections of the Respondents, and struck out the suit.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial court. The Appellant, thus, filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
The Supreme Court considered the following issue in its determination of the appeal:-
Whether the lower courts were right to hold that by virtue of Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022, the Appellant has no locus standi to challenge the internal affairs of the 2nd Respondent.
Arguments
Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant’s case is that, the provisions of the Electoral Act have not been complied with in respect of the 4th Respondent’s acceptance of his nomination as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent while still being the2nd Respondent’s Senatorial candidate. He submitted that Section 284(14)(c) of the Constitution, confers him with the locus standi to challenge the 1st Respondent’s non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act in the nomination of candidates of political parties. Responding, Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the role of the 1st Respondent is that of an unbiased umpire, and it cannot dictate to the 2nd Respondent how to conduct its internal affairs. He submitted that the Appellant lacks locus standi, as it cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the 2nd Respondent.
The 2nd Respondent argued that contrary to the Appellant’s position, the suit before the trial court was not against INEC, but against the nomination of its candidate. Reference was made to the reliefs sought in the Appellant’s Originating Summons. It was submitted further that it is only an aspirant who participated in the primaries of a political party that can challenge the nomination of the party’s candidate and a political party cannot hide under Section 284(14)(c) of the Constitution to interfere in the internal affairs of another political party. The 2nd Respondent maintained that the Appellant lacked the locus standi as its suits constituted an interference in its internal affairs
The arguments of the 3rd and 4th Respondent, are similar to those canvassed by the 2nd Respondent. However, the 3rd Respondent submitted additionally that a political party can only institute an action pursuant to Section 284(14)(c) of the Constitution, if the action of INEC complained of is against the interest of that political party itself, and not in respect of the affairs of another political party.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
The court, in resolving the issue, reiterated the time long principle that a Plaintiff’s locus standi is inextricably linked with the jurisdiction of the court, as once a Plaintiff lacks locus the court is also bereft of jurisdiction. Relying on its decisions in AKANDE v JEGEDE (2022) 14 NWLR (PT. 1849) 125 and AJAYI v ADEBIYI (2012) 11 NWLR (PT. 1310) 137, the Apex Court held that in order to have locus standi to sue in an action, a Plaintiff must show to the satisfaction of the court, that his civil rights have been or are in danger of being infringed. He must show that there is a nexus between his suit, and the conduct of the Defendant(s).
In determining whether the Appellant had been able to show sufficient nexus between itself and the purported actions of the Respondents, and whether the Appellant had been able to show that the said actions have harmed it or stand to potentially harm it, the court referred to the depositions in the affidavit in support of the Appellant’s Originating Summons and Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022. The Supreme Court held that Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 clearly vests locus standi only on an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral 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. The court held further that the subsection and its predecessor in Section 87(9) Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) have been subject of interpretation by the Apex Court at various times, and the court has been firm and consistent in holding that only an aspirant who participated in the primary election of a political party can institute an action pursuant to Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act. The court referred to its decision interpreting Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) in AL-HASSAN v ISHAKU (2016) 10 NWLR (PT. 1520) 230.
Their Lordships also held that for a Plaintiff to have locus standi to challenge the nomination of a candidate of a political party under Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, he must be an aspirant who actually participated in the primary election leading to the nomination of the party’s candidate. Reference was made to the decisions in WAZIRI v PDP (2023) 7 NWLR (PT. 1882) 57 and ODUAH v OKADIGBO (2019) 3 NWLR (PT. 1660) 433). It follows therefore, that the Appellant, not being a member of the 2nd Respondent or a person who participated in the nomination process leading to the emergence of the 4th Respondent, lacks locus under Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act.
On the Appellant’s argument that Section 284(14)(c) of the Constitution clothes it with locus standi to institute the action, the court held that indeed paragraph c of the Section is the only provision that empowered a political party to institute a pre-election matter, however, it restricted such matters to complaints against the actions of INEC. Even at that, its applicability does not extend to the actions of INEC in relation to another political party. Section 284(14)(c) of the Constitution only allows a political party to file pre-election matters, when the actions of INEC affect its own candidates. When the actions of INEC relate to the activities of a political party, no court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought by another political party in that regard. Relying on its decision in PDP v NGBOR & ORS. (2023) LPELR -59930 (SC), the Supreme Court held that a political party that files a suit to challenge the nomination of the candidate of another party will be a nosy busybody a meddlesome interloper, peeping into the affairs of his neighbour without any backing in law.
The court found that the Appellant by its Originating Summons and affidavit in support failed to disclose any nexus between the actions of the Respondents and its suit, and also failed to show which harm it has suffered or stands to potentially suffer from the actions complained of.
Regarding the submissions on the issue of multiple nomination of a candidate of a political party and the applicability of Section 35 of the Electoral Act to the instant case, the court went ahead to make comments thereon, owing to the overwhelming public interest it had generated. The court held that it is glaring from the express wordings of Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2022, that the legislative intention is that the withdrawal of a nominated candidate of a political party shall take effect from when the nominated candidate personally delivers his/her written notice of withdrawal to the political party that nominated him. The court held that although the provision gives the party not later than 90 days to the election to convey the withdrawal of its candidate to INEC, the date of the conveyance to INEC within the prescribed period has no effect on the withdrawal that had already been done.
Their Lordships held that the 4th Respondent withdrew as the 2nd Respondent’s Senatorial candidate on 6th July, 2022 when his written letter of withdrawal was received by his party on that same day. Therefore, as at 14th July, 2022, when the 4th Respondent accepted his nomination as the 2nd Respondent’s Vice-Presidential candidate, he was no longer the party’s Senatorial candidate for Borno Senatorial District, and his nomination as Vice-Presidential candidate was not a multiple nomination.
Appeal Dismissed.
Representation
Mr Joe Agi, SAN; Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN with others for the Appellant.
Adebiyi Adetosoye Esq. for the 1st Respondent.
Mr Babatunde Ogala, SAN with others for the 2nd Respondent.
Omosanya Popoola Esq., for the 3rd Respondent.
Oluronle Adeyemi, Esq. for the 4th Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR) An Affiliate of Babalakin & Co
