Without mincing words, minority will have both their way and
say. The few occasions where the majority get to have their say
(when purported primary elections are held), the minority still
retain the ultimate power of having their way by superimposing
their decisions on the outcome of such internal elections.
Internal democracy is slaughtered on the altar of
imposition.
In Nigeria, the biggest and most constant headache that
confronts the legal adviser of any political party in Nigeria is
the non-observance of internal democracy by the party hierarchy. In
the Nigerian political landscape, until recently, internal
democracy is a mere tag that only existed in the imagination of
politicians. In this vein, any electoral position within the
structure of a political party is a subject of conferment without
any consideration of the electability of the beneficiaries of the
conferment.
In other words, only those that the political kingmakers
consider worthy are conferred with the “honour” of being the
party’s candidates; the process of engaging a method that includes
the members of the party in the decision making generally and
nomination of the flag bearers of the party is considered alien by
both the party oligarchy and their suitors. Without mincing words,
minority will have both their way and say. The few occasions where
the majority get to have their say (when purported primary
elections are held), the minority still retain the ultimate power
of having their way by superimposing their decisions on the outcome
of such internal elections. Internal democracy is slaughtered on
the altar of imposition.
By my calling as a legal practitioner, i have the hallowed
responsibility of ensuring the observance of rule of law and the
tenets of democracy. My duty here extends to political
institutions, particularly, with regard to compliance with the
applicable laws and the rules of the game. This easily brings to
mind the sacred words of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice
W. S. N. Onnoghen, GCON at the Call to Bar Ceremonies held on July
13, 2017. His Lordship, in his speech, admonished thus:
“As legal practitioners, you cannot close your eyes to the social,
political and economic problems of our time, therefore you have a
duty to help rescue our society from pervasive lawlessness,
corruption and anti-social activities.”
It is, therefore, not in doubt that it is immoral for a legal
practitioner to close his eyes to political parties’ lawlessness.
Rescuing internal democracy from the hands of political oppressors
and the jaws of imposition falls with the ministerial function of
every legal practitioner.
At this juncture, it must be noted that internal democracy
transcends the internal affairs of a political party. This is
because the Nigerian legal framework duly recognizes it and
commands compliance with it. In this regard, section 228(a) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered)
confers on the National Assembly the power to make laws providing
for:
“…guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy, within
political parties, including making laws for the conduct of party
primaries, party congresses and party convention….”
It was in the exercise of this power that the National Assembly
enacted section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). It
clearly set out the guidelines, rules and steps that a political
party must follow in the nomination of its candidates for
elections. Here, section 87(1) of the Act is instructive, clear and
unambiguous. It provides thus:
“A political party seeking to nominate candidates for election
under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective
positions.” [Emphasis mine]
Section 87 of the Act is so elaborate that it states the types
of primaries that a political party may adopt (direct or indirect)
and the procedural steps a political party must follow where it
adopts either of the two types of primary election in case of each
election mentioned therein. Emphasising the purpose of section 87
of the Act, in PDP v. Sylvia [2012] 13 NWLR (part 1316) 85 at 148,
paras. A-B, Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC opined thus:
“The clear object the provisions of section 87 is intended to
achieve besides the inculcation of internal democracy in the
affairs of political parties in this country moreso in the conduct
of their party primaries includes thus making them transparent and
providing level playing ground for their contestants in party
primaries….”
Equally important is the fact that the constitution of political
parties contains the procedure for the nomination of candidates and
voting at congresses and party conventions. In this respect, the
constitution of the political party sets out how the party’s
primary elections are to be conducted in a manner that
institutionalises internal democracy. An example that easily comes
to mind is Article 20 of the Constitution of the All Progressives
Congress (as amended), the political party in which I am the legal
adviser. A look at the provisions of the said Article 20 makes it
clear that candidates of the party can only emerge through a
democratic path.
In case of indirect primaries, the delegates that will vote at
the primary election must have been democratically elected by
members of the party from the various wards contained in particular
constituency at congress. Even where an aspirant is unopposed,
democratic principles still have to be followed to ensure that the
unopposed aspirant is not a product of imposition. Without a doubt,
the party constitution has entrenched internal democracy and
eschewed imposition of candidates by the “powerful” minority.
Based on the foregoing, it would be reasonable to assume that
when it comes to nomination of candidates for elections, the legal
adviser of a political party could go to sleep knowing that the
legal framework would hold sway. However, it is common knowledge
that this is rarely the case. The fact is that any legal adviser
that urges compliance with the legal framework and adherence to
internal democracy easily finds himself to be a lone voice. He is
considered a rebel that is deserving of being ostracized from the
decision-making and deliberation within the party structure.
Despite the foregoing, it gladdens my heart to say that the
Supreme Court, under the leadership of the current Chief Justice of
Nigeria, the Hon. chief Justice Onnoghen, has taken the courageous
step of ensuring that the political oligarchy do not succeed in
casting internal democracy into the refuse bin. Now, political
parties are faced with the fact that the erosion of internal
democracy will not go unpunished. A case worthy of consideration is
the very recent and yet to be reported decision of the Supreme
Court in Mato v. Hembe & 2 Ors. SC.733/2016 (delivered on 23rd
day of June, 2017), amongst others.
Before delving into the recent landmark decisions of the Supreme
Court on this issue, it is necessary to note that the Supreme Court
has always made pronouncements on the importance of internal
democracy and the need for political parties to obey its own
constitution as well as the jurisdiction of the courts to intervene
in this regard. In the case of Shinkafi v. Yari [2016] 1 SC (Part
II) 1 at 31, line 13 to line 23, the Supreme Court held thus:
“… it is now trite that where a political party conducts its
primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary election
complains about its conduct of the primaries, the Courts have
jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 87(9) of the
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to examine if the conduct of the
primary was in accordance with the party’s Constitution and
Guidelines. The reason is that in the conduct of its primaries, the
Courts will never allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as
it likes. A political party must obey its Constitution.”
The Supreme Court made a similar stance in Tarzoor v. Ioraer [2016]
3 NWLR (part 1500) 463 at 529, para. G. In the leading judgment of
Rhodes-Vivour, JSC in PDP v. Sylvia (supra) at 125, paras. D-E, the
Supreme Court held thus:
“…where the political party conducts its primary and a
dissatisfied contestant at the primary complains about the conduct
of the primaries the courts have jurisdiction by virtue of the
provisions of section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act to examine if the
conduct of the primary elections was conducted in accordance with
the parties constitution and Guidelines. This is so because in the
conduct of its primaries the courts will never allow a political
party to act arbitrarily or as it likes. A political party must
obey its own constitution.”
Also, pertinent is the hallowed warning of Supreme Court in the
case of C.P.C. v. Ombugadu [2013] 18 NWLR (part 1385) 66 at 129 to
130, paras. F-E where Ngwuta, JSC held thus:
“An army is greater than the numerical strength of its soldiers.
In the same Vein, a political party is greater than the numerical
strength of its membership just like a country, for instance,
Nigeria, is greater than the totality of its citizens. It follows
that in the case of a political party, such as the 1st appellant
herein, the interest of an individual member or a group of members
or a group of members within the party, irrespective of the place
of such member or a group in the hierarchy of the party, must yield
place to the interest of the party. It is the greed, borne of
inordinate ambition to own, control and manipulate their own
political parties by individuals and groups therein and the
expected reaction by other party members that result to the
internal wrangling and want of internal democracy that constitute
the bane of political parties in Nigeria.
…It is apparent that a few powerful elements therein hijack the
parties and arrogated to themselves right to sell elective and
appointive positions to the party member who can afford same….
There is a popular saying that politics is a dirty game. I do not
share this view. It is the players who are dirty and they inflict
their filth on their members and, by implication on the society.
Politicians must learn to play the game of politics in strict
compliance with its rules of organised society.” [Emphasis
ours]
It is now trite to give due consideration to the impactful
decision of the Supreme Court in Mato v. Hembe (supra). In that
case, Onnoghen, CJN held that holding a primary election in a
manner contrary to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the
constitution of the political party will render such primary
election null and void. At page 37 to 40 of His Lordship’s
judgment, His Lordship held thus: “The facts deposed to in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit in support of the Originating
Summons show that the said primary election was held at HAF HAVEN
HOTEL, MAKURDI quite outside the headquarters of the Federal
Constituency. So, apart from the irregularities catalogued in
exhibits 4 and 2 reproduced above, the holding of the primary was
contrary to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the
constitution of the 2nd defendant.
Section 87(4) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)
provides:-
‘A Political Party that adopts the system of indirect primaries for
the choice of its candidate shall adopt the procedure outlined
below-
(c) in the case of nomination to the position of senatorial
candidate, House of Representatives and Head of Assembly, a
political party shall, where they intend to sponsor candidates-
(i) hold special congress in the Senatorial District, Federal
Constituency and State Assembly respectively, with delegates voting
for each of the aspirants in designated centres in specified
dates’
As a corollary to the above provision, article 14.11 of the 2nd
defendant’s Constitution provides that every member shall assemble
at their respective Federal Constituency Headquarters and voting
shall be by secrete ballot. A combined reading of these two
provisions reveals that it is mandatory for the political parties
to hold their congresses for the purpose of selecting their
candidates in the headquarters of the Constituency. As was pointed
out by the learned counsel for appellant in their written address,
the Electoral Act and the 2nd respondent’s constitution make
detailed provisions for the way and manner by which primary
elections are to be conducted. This is to ensure a level playing
field for all aspirants. Any contravention of the Act and the
Constitution of the Party in this regard would be regarded as a
ploy to negate the principle of due process of law enshrined
therein.
It is trite that where a statute provides for a means of doing a
thing, no other means or manner shall be permitted. Both the
Electoral Act and the Constitution of the 2nd defendant make it
mandatory that primaries be conducted in the headquarters of the
Constituency. The failure to comply with these provisions makes the
entire exercise null and void…
The truth must be told and that is, that the 1st and 2nd
defendants did not respect the provisions of the Electoral Act and
the constitution of the 2nd defendant in the conduct of the
primaries. This court has decided in quite a number of cases that
political parties must obey their own constitutions as the court
will not allow them to act arbitrarily or as they like….
From all I have endeavoured to say above, it is crystal clear that
the primaries which produced the 1st defendant was frought (sic)
with manifold irregularities aside the fact that he was not even
qualified to contest same.” [Emphasis mine]
Beyond doubt, by this singular pronouncement, His Lordship seeks
to enthrone internal democracy in the affairs of political parties.
In the same vein, Kekere-Ekun, JSC asserted that where political
parties appear to violate the principles of internal democracy, the
courts will not hesitate to whip them into line by wielding the big
stick. In Mato v. Hembe (supra) at page 2-3 of His Lordship’s
judgment, Kekere-Ekun, JSC held thus: “This case, in my view is a
clear example of the mischief sought to be tackled by section 87(9)
of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.
While it is true that the courts will not interfere in the
internal affairs of a political party nor its choice of candidate,
Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act ensures that in making their
choice of candidates for elective office political parties do not
stray beyond the confines of the Electoral Act or their own
electoral guidelines. The section seeks to curb the impunity with
which political parties hitherto acted without regard to the
democratic norms they profess to practice. As stated by my learned
brother in the lead judgment, this court in a plethora of cases has
asserted the fact that political parties must obey their own
constitutions and guidelines and where necessary (as provided by
law) the courts will intervene and wield the big stick to prevent
arbitrariness.
The only way our democratic dispensation can work effectively is
where every aspirant for political office, who is qualified to
contest an election, is given an even playing field. The failure of
internal democracy within our political parties right from the
grassroots level eventually leads to instability in the entire
political system. The failure of internal democracy is one of the
reason why the courts’ dockets are congested with pre-election
disputes. In Ugwu vs. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 376 @ 514
D-E, this court per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (as he then was)
admonished:
‘My lords if we want to instill sanity into our human affairs,
if we want to entrench unpolluted democracy in our body polity, the
naked truth must permeate through the blood, nerve and brain of
each and everyone of us. Although credit may not always have its
rightful place in politics, we should try to blend the two so as to
attain a fair, just and egalitarian society where no one is
oppressed. Let us call a spade a spade!’
I am in entire agreement with my learned brother, that in the
circumstances of this case it was crystal clear that not only were
there irregularities in the primary election that produced the 1st
respondent, the 2nd respondent failed to follow its own guidelines
in the selection of its candidate. I agree that in the eyes of the
law the plaintiff/appellant was the only candidate of the 2nd
defendant/2nd respondent as found by the report of the 2nd
defendant’s Appeals Committee.”
At page 4 of Eko, JSC’s judgment in Mato v. Hembe, His Lordship
did not mince words in calling the 1st Respondent an impostor.
Another very recent decision of the Supreme Court is between
Alhaji Shuaibu Isa Lau v. Sen. Sani Abubakar Danladi regarding the
Taraba North Senatorial District (delivered on June 23, 2017). The
Punch Newspaper, under the caption: Harsh verdicts await
unqualified candidates, S’Court tells political parties, quoted,
Augie JSC thus:
“This is a hard and very bitter lesson for political parties to
learn. They may have chosen candidates or eminent personalities
they want to present as candidates to INEC, but they have to play
by the rules.
“The chosen candidates must comply with requirements of the law;
they must abide by the provisions of the Electoral Act, which
creates a level playing field for all aspirants who seek to contest
elections.
“So, the political parties and their candidates must obey the
rules.”
I need not say more. Ordinarily, this ought to sound a death
knell on the untoward practice of imposition of candidates contrary
to the provisions of the applicable laws and the party’s
constitution. However, it appears that party oligarchy appear to
enjoy turning a deaf ear.
In the recent decision of the High Court of Lagos State (per
Okuwobi, J.) in Suit No. ID/1838/GCM/2017: Hakkem Abolaji Saka v.
All Progressives Congress & Anor. (delivered on July 7, 2017),
the court did not hesitate to nullify the nomination of candidate
without the conduct of primary election in accordance with the
stipulation of the Lagos State Independent Electoral Commission Law
and the Constitution of All Progressives Congress. Consequently,
the Court, inter alia, made and order restraining the Lagos State
Independent Electoral Commission from recognising, relying on or
using any list of chairmanship candidates submitted by All
Progressives Congress for the forthcoming Local Government
elections in Odi-Olowo Local Council Development Area.
Without a doubt, the foregoing is commendable as it shows that
parties do not have to get to the Supreme Court before the
judiciary wields the figurative big stick where a political party
jettisons internal democracy in the conduct of its affairs. This
is, particularly, instructive because the elements behind
imposition always rely on the fact that it would take years before
the matter would be decided by the Supreme Court in the course of
which their imposed candidate would have enjoyed a substantial
portion of the tenure of office. The good news however now is that,
not only are pre-election cases on fast track now, impostors are
now sanctioned by both removal and restitution of illegally gotten
dues. With the proactive pronouncement of High Court of Lagos
State, the erosion of internal democracy will be nipped in the bud
and good things will not suffer irreparable injury before salvation
comes.
Good governance is the desire of every sane society. In order
for any society to have good governance, there must be good
leadership. For there to be good leadership in a democratic
setting, internal democracy must be effectively and effectually
practised. One can only hope that political parties see the writing
on the wall and behave accordingly.
In conclusion, I believe the role of Courts in contemporary
times in the strengthening of internal democracy is not only
commendable but proactive. It is only hoped that more of our courts
will see the wisdom in this approach and political parties learn
the art of respect for the rule of law.
. Dr. Banire is the National Publicity Secretary of the All
Progressives Congress.
Without mincing words, minority will have both their way and
say. The few occasions where the majority get to have their say
(when purported primary elections are held), the minority still
retain the ultimate power of having their way by superimposing
their decisions on the outcome of such internal elections.
Internal democracy is slaughtered on the altar of
imposition.
In Nigeria, the biggest and most constant headache that
confronts the legal adviser of any political party in Nigeria is
the non-observance of internal democracy by the party hierarchy. In
the Nigerian political landscape, until recently, internal
democracy is a mere tag that only existed in the imagination of
politicians. In this vein, any electoral position within the
structure of a political party is a subject of conferment without
any consideration of the electability of the beneficiaries of the
conferment.
In other words, only those that the political kingmakers
consider worthy are conferred with the “honour” of being the
party’s candidates; the process of engaging a method that includes
the members of the party in the decision making generally and
nomination of the flag bearers of the party is considered alien by
both the party oligarchy and their suitors. Without mincing words,
minority will have both their way and say. The few occasions where
the majority get to have their say (when purported primary
elections are held), the minority still retain the ultimate power
of having their way by superimposing their decisions on the outcome
of such internal elections. Internal democracy is slaughtered on
the altar of imposition.
By my calling as a legal practitioner, i have the hallowed
responsibility of ensuring the observance of rule of law and the
tenets of democracy. My duty here extends to political
institutions, particularly, with regard to compliance with the
applicable laws and the rules of the game. This easily brings to
mind the sacred words of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice
W. S. N. Onnoghen, GCON at the Call to Bar Ceremonies held on July
13, 2017. His Lordship, in his speech, admonished thus:
“As legal practitioners, you cannot close your eyes to the social,
political and economic problems of our time, therefore you have a
duty to help rescue our society from pervasive lawlessness,
corruption and anti-social activities.”
It is, therefore, not in doubt that it is immoral for a legal
practitioner to close his eyes to political parties’ lawlessness.
Rescuing internal democracy from the hands of political oppressors
and the jaws of imposition falls with the ministerial function of
every legal practitioner.
At this juncture, it must be noted that internal democracy
transcends the internal affairs of a political party. This is
because the Nigerian legal framework duly recognizes it and
commands compliance with it. In this regard, section 228(a) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered)
confers on the National Assembly the power to make laws providing
for:
“…guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy, within
political parties, including making laws for the conduct of party
primaries, party congresses and party convention….”
It was in the exercise of this power that the National Assembly
enacted section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). It
clearly set out the guidelines, rules and steps that a political
party must follow in the nomination of its candidates for
elections. Here, section 87(1) of the Act is instructive, clear and
unambiguous. It provides thus:
“A political party seeking to nominate candidates for election
under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective
positions.” [Emphasis mine]
Section 87 of the Act is so elaborate that it states the types
of primaries that a political party may adopt (direct or indirect)
and the procedural steps a political party must follow where it
adopts either of the two types of primary election in case of each
election mentioned therein. Emphasising the purpose of section 87
of the Act, in PDP v. Sylvia [2012] 13 NWLR (part 1316) 85 at 148,
paras. A-B, Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC opined thus:
“The clear object the provisions of section 87 is intended to
achieve besides the inculcation of internal democracy in the
affairs of political parties in this country moreso in the conduct
of their party primaries includes thus making them transparent and
providing level playing ground for their contestants in party
primaries….”
Equally important is the fact that the constitution of political
parties contains the procedure for the nomination of candidates and
voting at congresses and party conventions. In this respect, the
constitution of the political party sets out how the party’s
primary elections are to be conducted in a manner that
institutionalises internal democracy. An example that easily comes
to mind is Article 20 of the Constitution of the All Progressives
Congress (as amended), the political party in which I am the legal
adviser. A look at the provisions of the said Article 20 makes it
clear that candidates of the party can only emerge through a
democratic path.
In case of indirect primaries, the delegates that will vote at
the primary election must have been democratically elected by
members of the party from the various wards contained in particular
constituency at congress. Even where an aspirant is unopposed,
democratic principles still have to be followed to ensure that the
unopposed aspirant is not a product of imposition. Without a doubt,
the party constitution has entrenched internal democracy and
eschewed imposition of candidates by the “powerful” minority.
Based on the foregoing, it would be reasonable to assume that
when it comes to nomination of candidates for elections, the legal
adviser of a political party could go to sleep knowing that the
legal framework would hold sway. However, it is common knowledge
that this is rarely the case. The fact is that any legal adviser
that urges compliance with the legal framework and adherence to
internal democracy easily finds himself to be a lone voice. He is
considered a rebel that is deserving of being ostracized from the
decision-making and deliberation within the party structure.
Despite the foregoing, it gladdens my heart to say that the
Supreme Court, under the leadership of the current Chief Justice of
Nigeria, the Hon. chief Justice Onnoghen, has taken the courageous
step of ensuring that the political oligarchy do not succeed in
casting internal democracy into the refuse bin. Now, political
parties are faced with the fact that the erosion of internal
democracy will not go unpunished. A case worthy of consideration is
the very recent and yet to be reported decision of the Supreme
Court in Mato v. Hembe & 2 Ors. SC.733/2016 (delivered on 23rd
day of June, 2017), amongst others.
Before delving into the recent landmark decisions of the Supreme
Court on this issue, it is necessary to note that the Supreme Court
has always made pronouncements on the importance of internal
democracy and the need for political parties to obey its own
constitution as well as the jurisdiction of the courts to intervene
in this regard. In the case of Shinkafi v. Yari [2016] 1 SC (Part
II) 1 at 31, line 13 to line 23, the Supreme Court held thus:
“… it is now trite that where a political party conducts its
primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary election
complains about its conduct of the primaries, the Courts have
jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 87(9) of the
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to examine if the conduct of the
primary was in accordance with the party’s Constitution and
Guidelines. The reason is that in the conduct of its primaries, the
Courts will never allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as
it likes. A political party must obey its Constitution.”
The Supreme Court made a similar stance in Tarzoor v. Ioraer [2016]
3 NWLR (part 1500) 463 at 529, para. G. In the leading judgment of
Rhodes-Vivour, JSC in PDP v. Sylvia (supra) at 125, paras. D-E, the
Supreme Court held thus:
“…where the political party conducts its primary and a
dissatisfied contestant at the primary complains about the conduct
of the primaries the courts have jurisdiction by virtue of the
provisions of section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act to examine if the
conduct of the primary elections was conducted in accordance with
the parties constitution and Guidelines. This is so because in the
conduct of its primaries the courts will never allow a political
party to act arbitrarily or as it likes. A political party must
obey its own constitution.”
Also, pertinent is the hallowed warning of Supreme Court in the
case of C.P.C. v. Ombugadu [2013] 18 NWLR (part 1385) 66 at 129 to
130, paras. F-E where Ngwuta, JSC held thus:
“An army is greater than the numerical strength of its soldiers.
In the same Vein, a political party is greater than the numerical
strength of its membership just like a country, for instance,
Nigeria, is greater than the totality of its citizens. It follows
that in the case of a political party, such as the 1st appellant
herein, the interest of an individual member or a group of members
or a group of members within the party, irrespective of the place
of such member or a group in the hierarchy of the party, must yield
place to the interest of the party. It is the greed, borne of
inordinate ambition to own, control and manipulate their own
political parties by individuals and groups therein and the
expected reaction by other party members that result to the
internal wrangling and want of internal democracy that constitute
the bane of political parties in Nigeria.
…It is apparent that a few powerful elements therein hijack the
parties and arrogated to themselves right to sell elective and
appointive positions to the party member who can afford same….
There is a popular saying that politics is a dirty game. I do not
share this view. It is the players who are dirty and they inflict
their filth on their members and, by implication on the society.
Politicians must learn to play the game of politics in strict
compliance with its rules of organised society.” [Emphasis
ours]
It is now trite to give due consideration to the impactful
decision of the Supreme Court in Mato v. Hembe (supra). In that
case, Onnoghen, CJN held that holding a primary election in a
manner contrary to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the
constitution of the political party will render such primary
election null and void. At page 37 to 40 of His Lordship’s
judgment, His Lordship held thus: “The facts deposed to in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit in support of the Originating
Summons show that the said primary election was held at HAF HAVEN
HOTEL, MAKURDI quite outside the headquarters of the Federal
Constituency. So, apart from the irregularities catalogued in
exhibits 4 and 2 reproduced above, the holding of the primary was
contrary to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the
constitution of the 2nd defendant.
Section 87(4) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)
provides:-
‘A Political Party that adopts the system of indirect primaries for
the choice of its candidate shall adopt the procedure outlined
below-
(c) in the case of nomination to the position of senatorial
candidate, House of Representatives and Head of Assembly, a
political party shall, where they intend to sponsor candidates-
(i) hold special congress in the Senatorial District, Federal
Constituency and State Assembly respectively, with delegates voting
for each of the aspirants in designated centres in specified
dates’
As a corollary to the above provision, article 14.11 of the 2nd
defendant’s Constitution provides that every member shall assemble
at their respective Federal Constituency Headquarters and voting
shall be by secrete ballot. A combined reading of these two
provisions reveals that it is mandatory for the political parties
to hold their congresses for the purpose of selecting their
candidates in the headquarters of the Constituency. As was pointed
out by the learned counsel for appellant in their written address,
the Electoral Act and the 2nd respondent’s constitution make
detailed provisions for the way and manner by which primary
elections are to be conducted. This is to ensure a level playing
field for all aspirants. Any contravention of the Act and the
Constitution of the Party in this regard would be regarded as a
ploy to negate the principle of due process of law enshrined
therein.
It is trite that where a statute provides for a means of doing a
thing, no other means or manner shall be permitted. Both the
Electoral Act and the Constitution of the 2nd defendant make it
mandatory that primaries be conducted in the headquarters of the
Constituency. The failure to comply with these provisions makes the
entire exercise null and void…
The truth must be told and that is, that the 1st and 2nd
defendants did not respect the provisions of the Electoral Act and
the constitution of the 2nd defendant in the conduct of the
primaries. This court has decided in quite a number of cases that
political parties must obey their own constitutions as the court
will not allow them to act arbitrarily or as they like….
From all I have endeavoured to say above, it is crystal clear that
the primaries which produced the 1st defendant was frought (sic)
with manifold irregularities aside the fact that he was not even
qualified to contest same.” [Emphasis mine]
Beyond doubt, by this singular pronouncement, His Lordship seeks
to enthrone internal democracy in the affairs of political parties.
In the same vein, Kekere-Ekun, JSC asserted that where political
parties appear to violate the principles of internal democracy, the
courts will not hesitate to whip them into line by wielding the big
stick. In Mato v. Hembe (supra) at page 2-3 of His Lordship’s
judgment, Kekere-Ekun, JSC held thus: “This case, in my view is a
clear example of the mischief sought to be tackled by section 87(9)
of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.
While it is true that the courts will not interfere in the
internal affairs of a political party nor its choice of candidate,
Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act ensures that in making their
choice of candidates for elective office political parties do not
stray beyond the confines of the Electoral Act or their own
electoral guidelines. The section seeks to curb the impunity with
which political parties hitherto acted without regard to the
democratic norms they profess to practice. As stated by my learned
brother in the lead judgment, this court in a plethora of cases has
asserted the fact that political parties must obey their own
constitutions and guidelines and where necessary (as provided by
law) the courts will intervene and wield the big stick to prevent
arbitrariness.
The only way our democratic dispensation can work effectively is
where every aspirant for political office, who is qualified to
contest an election, is given an even playing field. The failure of
internal democracy within our political parties right from the
grassroots level eventually leads to instability in the entire
political system. The failure of internal democracy is one of the
reason why the courts’ dockets are congested with pre-election
disputes. In Ugwu vs. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 376 @ 514
D-E, this court per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (as he then was)
admonished:
‘My lords if we want to instill sanity into our human affairs,
if we want to entrench unpolluted democracy in our body polity, the
naked truth must permeate through the blood, nerve and brain of
each and everyone of us. Although credit may not always have its
rightful place in politics, we should try to blend the two so as to
attain a fair, just and egalitarian society where no one is
oppressed. Let us call a spade a spade!’
I am in entire agreement with my learned brother, that in the
circumstances of this case it was crystal clear that not only were
there irregularities in the primary election that produced the 1st
respondent, the 2nd respondent failed to follow its own guidelines
in the selection of its candidate. I agree that in the eyes of the
law the plaintiff/appellant was the only candidate of the 2nd
defendant/2nd respondent as found by the report of the 2nd
defendant’s Appeals Committee.”
At page 4 of Eko, JSC’s judgment in Mato v. Hembe, His Lordship
did not mince words in calling the 1st Respondent an impostor.
Another very recent decision of the Supreme Court is between
Alhaji Shuaibu Isa Lau v. Sen. Sani Abubakar Danladi regarding the
Taraba North Senatorial District (delivered on June 23, 2017). The
Punch Newspaper, under the caption: Harsh verdicts await
unqualified candidates, S’Court tells political parties, quoted,
Augie JSC thus:
“This is a hard and very bitter lesson for political parties to
learn. They may have chosen candidates or eminent personalities
they want to present as candidates to INEC, but they have to play
by the rules.
“The chosen candidates must comply with requirements of the law;
they must abide by the provisions of the Electoral Act, which
creates a level playing field for all aspirants who seek to contest
elections.
“So, the political parties and their candidates must obey the
rules.”
I need not say more. Ordinarily, this ought to sound a death
knell on the untoward practice of imposition of candidates contrary
to the provisions of the applicable laws and the party’s
constitution. However, it appears that party oligarchy appear to
enjoy turning a deaf ear.
In the recent decision of the High Court of Lagos State (per
Okuwobi, J.) in Suit No. ID/1838/GCM/2017: Hakkem Abolaji Saka v.
All Progressives Congress & Anor. (delivered on July 7, 2017),
the court did not hesitate to nullify the nomination of candidate
without the conduct of primary election in accordance with the
stipulation of the Lagos State Independent Electoral Commission Law
and the Constitution of All Progressives Congress. Consequently,
the Court, inter alia, made and order restraining the Lagos State
Independent Electoral Commission from recognising, relying on or
using any list of chairmanship candidates submitted by All
Progressives Congress for the forthcoming Local Government
elections in Odi-Olowo Local Council Development Area.
Without a doubt, the foregoing is commendable as it shows that
parties do not have to get to the Supreme Court before the
judiciary wields the figurative big stick where a political party
jettisons internal democracy in the conduct of its affairs. This
is, particularly, instructive because the elements behind
imposition always rely on the fact that it would take years before
the matter would be decided by the Supreme Court in the course of
which their imposed candidate would have enjoyed a substantial
portion of the tenure of office. The good news however now is that,
not only are pre-election cases on fast track now, impostors are
now sanctioned by both removal and restitution of illegally gotten
dues. With the proactive pronouncement of High Court of Lagos
State, the erosion of internal democracy will be nipped in the bud
and good things will not suffer irreparable injury before salvation
comes.
Good governance is the desire of every sane society. In order
for any society to have good governance, there must be good
leadership. For there to be good leadership in a democratic
setting, internal democracy must be effectively and effectually
practised. One can only hope that political parties see the writing
on the wall and behave accordingly.
In conclusion, I believe the role of Courts in contemporary
times in the strengthening of internal democracy is not only
commendable but proactive. It is only hoped that more of our courts
will see the wisdom in this approach and political parties learn
the art of respect for the rule of law.
. Dr. Banire is the National Publicity Secretary of the All
Progressives Congress.
Read more https://nairalaw.com/the-courts-and-internal-democracy-in-nigeria-by-muiz-banire/