Buni Can Continue To Lead APC, Says Ex-Law School DG Tahir

A former Director-General of the Nigerian Law School, Prof.
Tahir Mamman (SAN), yesterday said Yobe State Governor Mai Mala
Buni can still continue to be the chairman of the Caretaker and
Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) of the ruling
All Progressives Congress (APC), despite the recent judgment of the
Supreme Court.

He said Buni’s position does not contradict Section 183 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The former Law School boss said Buni could proceed with the
conduct of all congresses and party’s activities without any legal
threat.

Mamman’s advisory was contained in the legal position of the
CECPC, following the judgment of the Supreme Court on the
validation of the victory of Ondo State Governor Oluwarotimi
Akeredolu.

The ex-DG, who is a member of the CECPC, said Buni is on a firm
ground to lead the party.

The legal advisory reads: “That Mai Mala Buni’s position as
Acting Chairman of the Caretaker and Extraordinary Convention
Planning Committee is not contrary to the provision of Section 183
of the CFRN as same is on a temporary basis which is not akin to
Executive office or paid employment, as envisaged by Section 183 of
the CFRN.

“On the strength of all the above position of the Supreme Court
in the instant case and other earlier decided cases cited in
support, it is our opinion that the Caretaker and Extraordinary
Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) headed by Governor Mai Mala
Buni is on firm ground to proceed with its mandate as given by the
National Executive Committee of the APC.”

Tahir insisted that Buni could validly lead the party on a
temporary basis because he is not operating as an Executive Officer
on salary.

He said: “On the validity of Mai Mala Buni acting as a sitting
governor in the position of Chairman, Caretaker, Extraordinary
Convention Planning Committee of the APC, vis a vis the provisions
of Section 183 of the CFRN and Articles, 13.3(vi) and 17(iv) of the
Constitution of the APC 2014(as amended) and the effect on the APC
or the qualification of its candidates; the Supreme Court relied
copiously on the judgment of the Court of Appeal and agreed with
same in resolving this issue (see pages 31 to 36 of the lead
judgment).

“Indeed, the Court of Appeal had found that the functions
performed by Mai Mala Buni were those of the National Chairman of
the APC but that they were performed on a temporary basis.”

“The Court, however, held that questions regarding the validity
or otherwise of the actions of Mai Mala Buni in that acting and
temporary office cannot be questioned in the absence of Mai Mala
who is a necessary party, without whose presence the issues could
not be competently and validly litigated.

“The Court of Appeal went further to hold that such issues can
only be litigated in a proper civil suit and not in an election
petition where the jurisdiction of the tribunal is narrow and
limited to questions as to whether a person has been validly
elected to a public office.”

The ex-Law School boos averred that Sections 31 and 87 of the
Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), govern sponsorship and nomination
of candidates.

He added: “That sponsorship of a candidate in an election is
that of the party and not the individual Officer of the party
forwarding the name of the candidate.

“That the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party is
empowered to create, elect and appoint Committees (including the
instant CECPC) or any other committee

“In conclusion and by way of summary, it is respectfully
submitted as follows:

“The law is and still remain that the provisions that govern
sponsorship and nomination of candidates in an election are:
Sections 31 and 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.

“That there is no provision in the Electoral Act prescribing any
form for forwarding or submission of the sponsored candidate of a
political party in an election.

“Sections 177 and 182 of the CFRN which make provisions for
qualifications and disqualification of candidates for Governorship
election are exhaustive and leave no room for any addition.

“That no other Law/Act can be relied upon to disqualify a
candidate in an election save for the provisions of Section 182 of
the CFRN.

“That non-compliance with INEC directives (regulations,
guidelines or manuals) for the purpose of election but which is not
contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act shall not of itself
be a ground in an election petition.

“Paragraph 17 (a) of the First Supplementary to Regulations and
Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections cannot be relied upon as
ground to question the return of a candidate in an election.”

A former Director-General of the Nigerian Law School, Prof.
Tahir Mamman (SAN), yesterday said Yobe State Governor Mai Mala
Buni can still continue to be the chairman of the Caretaker and
Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) of the ruling
All Progressives Congress (APC), despite the recent judgment of the
Supreme Court.

He said Buni’s position does not contradict Section 183 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The former Law School boss said Buni could proceed with the
conduct of all congresses and party’s activities without any legal
threat.

Mamman’s advisory was contained in the legal position of the
CECPC, following the judgment of the Supreme Court on the
validation of the victory of Ondo State Governor Oluwarotimi
Akeredolu.

The ex-DG, who is a member of the CECPC, said Buni is on a firm
ground to lead the party.

The legal advisory reads: “That Mai Mala Buni’s position as
Acting Chairman of the Caretaker and Extraordinary Convention
Planning Committee is not contrary to the provision of Section 183
of the CFRN as same is on a temporary basis which is not akin to
Executive office or paid employment, as envisaged by Section 183 of
the CFRN.

“On the strength of all the above position of the Supreme Court
in the instant case and other earlier decided cases cited in
support, it is our opinion that the Caretaker and Extraordinary
Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) headed by Governor Mai Mala
Buni is on firm ground to proceed with its mandate as given by the
National Executive Committee of the APC.”

Tahir insisted that Buni could validly lead the party on a
temporary basis because he is not operating as an Executive Officer
on salary.

He said: “On the validity of Mai Mala Buni acting as a sitting
governor in the position of Chairman, Caretaker, Extraordinary
Convention Planning Committee of the APC, vis a vis the provisions
of Section 183 of the CFRN and Articles, 13.3(vi) and 17(iv) of the
Constitution of the APC 2014(as amended) and the effect on the APC
or the qualification of its candidates; the Supreme Court relied
copiously on the judgment of the Court of Appeal and agreed with
same in resolving this issue (see pages 31 to 36 of the lead
judgment).

“Indeed, the Court of Appeal had found that the functions
performed by Mai Mala Buni were those of the National Chairman of
the APC but that they were performed on a temporary basis.”

“The Court, however, held that questions regarding the validity
or otherwise of the actions of Mai Mala Buni in that acting and
temporary office cannot be questioned in the absence of Mai Mala
who is a necessary party, without whose presence the issues could
not be competently and validly litigated.

“The Court of Appeal went further to hold that such issues can
only be litigated in a proper civil suit and not in an election
petition where the jurisdiction of the tribunal is narrow and
limited to questions as to whether a person has been validly
elected to a public office.”

The ex-Law School boos averred that Sections 31 and 87 of the
Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), govern sponsorship and nomination
of candidates.

He added: “That sponsorship of a candidate in an election is
that of the party and not the individual Officer of the party
forwarding the name of the candidate.

“That the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party is
empowered to create, elect and appoint Committees (including the
instant CECPC) or any other committee

“In conclusion and by way of summary, it is respectfully
submitted as follows:

“The law is and still remain that the provisions that govern
sponsorship and nomination of candidates in an election are:
Sections 31 and 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.

“That there is no provision in the Electoral Act prescribing any
form for forwarding or submission of the sponsored candidate of a
political party in an election.

“Sections 177 and 182 of the CFRN which make provisions for
qualifications and disqualification of candidates for Governorship
election are exhaustive and leave no room for any addition.

“That no other Law/Act can be relied upon to disqualify a
candidate in an election save for the provisions of Section 182 of
the CFRN.

“That non-compliance with INEC directives (regulations,
guidelines or manuals) for the purpose of election but which is not
contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act shall not of itself
be a ground in an election petition.

“Paragraph 17 (a) of the First Supplementary to Regulations and
Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections cannot be relied upon as
ground to question the return of a candidate in an election.”