‘Only aspirants in a primary can challenge its outcome’

12 min read 2,354 words 1 view

AISHA JUMMAI ALAHASSAN & ANOR

MR. DARIUS DICKSON ISHAKU & ORS

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ON MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016

SC.46/2016 (CONSOLIDATED)

LN-e-LR/2016/5 (SC)

OTHER CITATIONS

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JSC, OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC, MARY UKAEGO
PETER-ODILI, JSC, MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JSC, CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI,
JSC, JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC, AMIRU SANUSI, JSC,

BETWEEN

1. AISHA JUMMAI ALAHASSAN

2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)

-SC.46/2016

MAIN JUDGMENT

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC (Delivering the Leading
Judgment):

On 11 February 2016, your lordships heard and dismissed this
appeal for reasons to be given on 22 February 2016. These are the
reasons that led me to that conclusion.

THE FACTS ARE THESE

On 11 and 25 April 2015 the 3rd respondent, the regulatory body
charged with the conduct of elections in Nigeria conducted election
for the office of Governor of Taraba State. There were 11
candidates at that election. The 1st appellant, sponsored by the
2nd appellant, and the 1st respondent sponsored by the 2nd
respondent were candidates at the election. The 1st respondent was
declared the winner of the election with a score of 369,318 votes,
while the 1st appellant came second with 275,984 votes. The 1st
appellant and her party, the 2nd appellant, were not satisfied with
the outcome of the election, and so they filed a petition. The
other candidates were satisfied with the outcome of the
election.

The Grounds of the Petition are:

(a) That the 1st respondent was at the time of the election, not
qualified to contest for the Office of Governor of Taraba State,
having not been sponsored by a political party, a condition
precedent prescribed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria,1999 (as amended)

(b) That the election and return of 1st respondent was invalid
by reason of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and Approved Guidelines and
Regulations for the conduct of 2015 General Elections and Manual
for Election Officials 2015 which non-compliance substantially
affected the result of the election.

(c) That the election and return of 1st respondent was invalid
by reason of corrupt practices which vitiated the election.

(d) That contrary to result declared by 3rd respondent, the 1st
petitioner indeed won majority of lawful votes cast and satisfied
the mandatory constitutional threshold and spread across the local
government areas of Taraba State and ought to have been declared
winner and returned as the duly elected Governor of Taraba State at
the 11 April and 25 April 2015 election.

The petitioners prayed for the following:

1. That it may be determined that the 1st respondent was at the
time of the election having failed to meet the constitutional
requirement of being sponsored by a political party.

2. That it may be determined that the return of the 1st
respondent as the Governor of Taraba State in the election held on
11 and 25 April, 2015 is void for corrupt practices and substantial
non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as
amended).

3. That it may be determined that the 1st respondent was not
duly elected or returned in the pulling units complained of in
Ardo-Kola, Bali, Donga, Ibbi, Jalingo, Karim Lamido, Kurme, Lau
Takum, Ussa, Wukari, Yorro and Zing Local Governments of Taraba
State by majority of lawful votes cast at the governorship election
held on 11 and 25 April, 2015.

4. That it may be determined that the 1st petitioner scored the
majority of lawful votes cast in the election held on 11 and 25
April, 2015 and satisfied the constitutional requirement and is
entitled to be returned by the 3rd respondent as having been duly
elected Governor of Taraba State in the election held on 11 and 25
April, 2015.

The petitioners ask for the following
reliefs:

1. AN ORDER that the 1st petitioner be issued forthwith with a
certificate of return as the duly elected Governor of Taraba State,
pursuant to the election held on 11 and 25 April, 2015.

2. In the alternative to (3) and (4) above, that it may be
determined that the elections in the polling units and wards in
Ardo-Kola, Bali, Donga, Ibbi, Jalingo, Karim, Lamido, Kurme, Lau
Takum, Ussa, Wukari, Yorro and Zing Local Governments of Taraba
State characterised by electoral irregularities and non-compliance
(i.e. over-voting) in the governorship election held on 11 and 25
April, 2015 are invalid and that fresh elections be held in the
said local government areas, amongst the contestant who
participated in the original election, and that result of the fresh
election in the affected local government areas be added to the
scores of the respective candidates to determine and declare the
eventual winner of majority of lawful and valid votes cast amongst
the same contestants who stood nominated and entitled to contest
the said election on 11 and 25 April, 2015.

The respondents responded with their replies urging the court to
dismiss the entire petition.

Court’s Decision

After examining the sad state of the appellants’ pleadings where
they admitted that the 1st respondent was indeed sponsored by the
2nd respondent the appellants’ filed woefully to show that any of
the provisions of Section 177 of the Constitution applies to the
1st respondent. After an examination of decided authorities it is
so clear that party primaries are the domestic affair of the
political party which no outsider can complain about. Only
aspirants at the primaries can complain about the conduct of party
primaries. Furthermore an election tribunal has no jurisdiction to
comment or examine how party primaries were conducted. Jurisdiction
for such an exercise resides with Federal High Court, High Court of
a State, or FCT High Court and only at the instance of a
dissatisfied aspirant at the primaries.

Finally nomination, sponsorship of candidates by a party are
pre-election matters that should be heard before petition is heard
in an Election Tribunal.

In conclusion a brief summary of the reasons why this appeal
fails would suffice at this stage.

1. Appellants’ pleadings were against their own case rather than
in favour of their case.

2. Evidence of PW2 & Exhibit 5 in favour of the appellants’
to show that the 2nd respondent did not conduct primaries is at
variance with appellants’ pleadings and so worthless.

3. It is only a person who participated in his party primaries
that has locus standi to complain about how the primaries were
conducted. The 1st appellant not being a member of the PDP (2nd
respondent) has no locus standi to say that the 1st respondent was
not sponsored by the 2nd respondent.

4. The 1st appellant in paragraph 74 (6) of her petition called
for fresh election, and that the 1st respondent should participate.
How may I ask can a person the Appellant’ says was not sponsored by
his party participate in afresh election?

This appeal has no redeeming features. It lacks substance and it
ought to fail. It is accordingly dismissed.

Parties to bear their costs.

Bode RHODES – VIVOUR, JSC