Continued from Thursday
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 primary, 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 election was conducted in accordance with
the party’s 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 the 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 members 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 the
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 a 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 secret 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 practise. 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 reasons 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!’
- To be concluded
Banire the National Legal Adviser of the All
Progressives Congress
Continued from Thursday
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 primary, 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 election was conducted in accordance with
the party’s 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 the 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 members 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 the
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 a 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 secret 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 practise. 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 reasons 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!’
- To be concluded
Banire the National Legal Adviser of the All
Progressives Congress
Read more https://nairalaw.com/the-courts-and-internal-democracy-in-nigerian-political-parties-2/