Fools Errand! PDP vs Shettima!!

 “FOOLS’ ERRAND” SUPREME COURT DECRIBES AND DISMISSES PDP’S APPEAL SEEKING TO DISQUALIFY THE NOMINATION OF SHETTIMA AND INDEED BOLA AHMED TINUBU ON ALLEGED GROUNDS OF DOUBLE NOMINATION

Recall that the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja per Honourable Justice Ekwo Inyang on the 13th of January, 2023 dismissed a suit filed by Peoples’ Democratic Party, against the All-Progressives Congress & Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu in FHC/ABJ/CS/1734/2022. Other parties sued are; Kasshim Shettima, and the Independent National Electoral Commission. The suit which prayed the Court for reliefs as follows:

i. A DECLARATION of the Honorable Court that by the provisions of Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022, the 4th Respondent is disqualified from participating in the February 25th ,2023 Presidential Election having knowingly allowed himself to be nominated in two consistencies as Senator Borno Central District and as Vice Presidential Candidate of the 2nd Respondent.

ii. A DECLARATION that the nominations of the 3rd and 4th Respondents as Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates of the 2nd Respondent is void having regards to the double nominations of the 4th Respondent.

iii. AN ORDER disqualifying the 3rd and 4th Defendants from contesting or participating in the forthcoming 2023 Presidential General Election as a candidate of the 2nd Defendant

     

iv. AN ORDER directing the 1st Respondent to strike off the names of the 3rd AND 4th Respondents as candidates of the 2nd Respondent eligible to contest for the Presidential Election slated for February 25th 2023.

v. AN injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th Respondent from further representing themselves as candidates of the 2nd Respondent for the Presidential Election slated for 23rd February, 2023.

vi. AN Order restraining the 2nd Respondent from further nominating candidates for the Presidential Election scheduled for the 25th of February, 2023.

vii. AND FOR such orders as the Honorable Court may deem fit to make as consequential to the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs in this suit.

AT THE TRIAL COURT.

In defense of the suit, the Law office of Babatunde Ogala (SAN) & Co on behalf of All Progressives Congress filed a its’ Memorandum of Conditional Appearance, a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Counter-Affidavit with Written Addresses. The Preliminary objection was premised on the following grounds:

a. That the Plaintiffs not being aspirants in the Primaries of the 2nd Defendant lacked the Locus standi to institute and maintain the suit against the 2nd Defendant.

b. The Originating summons is incompetent not issued or sealed by the Registrar of the Federal High Court.

c. The Plaintiffs lacked the cause of action to institute or maintain the suit against the 2nd Defendant.

d. That the suit was statute Barred and robbed the Court of the Jurisdiction to entertain same.

e. And the suit constituted an abuse of Court Process.

On the 25th of October, 2022 when the matter came up for hearing, Mr. Babatunde OGALA SAN appeared for the All-Progressives Congress and adopted on behalf of the All-Progressives Congress the Notice of Preliminary objection, Counter-Affidavit and Written Addresses and prayed the Court to dismiss/strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

The trial judge while delivering the judgment of the Court on the 13th of January, 2023, agreed with learned counsel to the 2nd Defendant (APC) that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to file the Action not being an aspirant who partook in the Primaries of the 2nd Defendant as mandated by Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act,2022. The Court further held that the reliance on the provisions of Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution would not avail the Plaintiff as it is meant for political parties to file actions against INEC with respect to its’ own candidates and not another political party’s candidates.

Having held that the Plaintiffs who were not aspirants in the Primaries of the 2nd Respondent lacked locus standi and being a threshold issue, the court dismissed the suit as lacking in merit.

Aggrieved by the Decision, the Plaintiff (now Appellants) challenged the decision of the trial Court.

COURT OF APPEAL.

The Appeal was commenced by a Notice of Appeal dated the 26th January, 2023, with Appeal No CA/ABJ/108/2023. Records were transmitted and the Appellants Brief of Argument was filed. The gamut of the Appeal was a total reliance on Section 285(14(c) of the 1999 Constitution for locus and that the Court of Appeal interpret Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022 on double nominations viz a vis the case of the Appellant at the trial Court.

The reliefs sought by the Appellant were; a. AN ORDER allowing the Appeal;

b. AN ORDER invoking Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2021 to hear and determine the substance of the Suit.

Mr. Babatunde OGALA SAN filed the 2nd Respondent Brief against the Appeal and the Appeal was heard by a 3-man Panel of the Court of Appeal on the 4th day of March, 2023 and judgment was reserved.

In a considered judgment, delivered on the 24th Day of March, 2023 the Court of Appeal, delivered its’ judgement and upheld the arguments filed by the office of Babatunde Ogala SAN & Co as follows;

a. That the Appellant lacked the locus standi to institute, maintain or to demand the reliefs sought at the Court of Appeal not being an Aspirant in the Primaries of the 2nd Respondent and that Section 285(14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution does not grant the Appellant Locus to challenge the primaries and indeed the nominations of the 2nd Respondent.

b. Having held that the Appellant lacks the Locus standi to institute this Appeal, the appeal is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.

c. The Judgement of Ekwo J of the Federal High Court Abuja is hereby affirmed.

d. Cost of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira Only) is awarded in favor of the Respondents each against the Appellant to be paid personally by counsel to the Appellant, James Olotu Esq.

On the Merits of the case, the Court of Appeal held thus;

a. Having held that the Appellant lack the Locus standi to institute this Appeal, the Appellant have failed to cross the threshold requiring Judicial adjudication. The Appeal is dismissed

accordingly.

SUPREME COURT

Still aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the PDP filed three Notices of Appeal all filed within time challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal and seeking the Invocation of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act.

The office of Babatunde OGALA SAN filed the 2nd Respondents’ Brief, Notice of Preliminary objection and List of additional Authorities on behalf of the 2nd Respondent.

The matter came up for Hearing on the 22nd of May, 2023 and, Joe AGI SAN and Mike OZOKHOME SAN appeared for PDP, learned Silk, Babatunde OGALA SAN appeared for the All Progressives Congress while the office of Lateef Fagbemi represented the 3rd and 4th Respondent. After hearing, the matter was adjourned to the 26th of May, 2023 for judgment.

SUPREME COURT 26th MAY, 2023

A five-man Panel of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the Appeal. Lead judgment was read by my Lord, JAURO JSC, although panel was led by my Lord, Okoro JSC, other members of the Panel are;

my Lord, Amina Augie JSC, my Lord, Ogunwunmiju JSC and my Lord, AGIM JSC.

ADAMU JAURO JSC (Lead judgement)

The Court read extensively its’ judgment and stated jurisdiction is paramount as a court must have jurisdiction before it can adjudicate on a matter before it. The Appellant and indeed the Respondents have made the issue of locus standi issue one of their briefs and same shall be resolved before delving to other issues. The poser; whether the PDP had locus standi under Section 285(14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to challenge the nominations of the 3rd and 4th Respondent? The court held thus; Section 285(14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution does not in anyway confer locus on the Appellant to challenge the nominations of the 2nd Respondent. The section deals with a political party challenging the actions of INEC with respect to its own candidates. The court held particularly thus;

a. the Appellant is a nosy busy body and a meddlesome interloper without locus standi to challenge the nominations of the 2nd Respondent’s (APC) candidates.

b. The Appellant has asked us to hear the matter on the merit, there are conditions for invoking Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act. The trial court and indeed the court below no longer have jurisdiction and this court cannot assume jurisdiction, these are Constitutional provisions.

c. The case is fraught with irredeemable maladies and it is without merit.

d. This court is a policy court and must maintain its’ integrity, Cost of Two Million Naira is awarded in favor of the Respondents.

OKORO JSC (Judgement)

I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the judgement of my Learned brother and I totally agree with the submissions. I must however state the following as this Court is a policy Court;

a. The Appellant stated to this court that the court below found that there was indeed double nomination and that the 4th Respondent knowingly allowed himself to be nominated in two Constituencies. I have searched the entirety of the record and indeed the judgement of the court below and there is no such finding. To think that learned senior counsel will mislead the court is sad.

b. For public policy sake, I must state that indeed the 4th Respondent withdrew from the nomination for Borno Central District on the 6th of July, 2022 exhibited as Exhibit APC 1 on page 58 of the record of Appeal.

c. The political party sent to the INEC same 6th of July, 2022 the notice of withdrawal. The political party further sent on the 10th of July, 2022 notification of dates for the conduct of fresh primaries for the senatorial district and the latter letter exhibit APC2 on page 59 of the record carried the reference of Exhibit APC1. That is as at the 6th of July,2022 there was no longer nomination of the 4th Respondent for Borno Central Senatorial District and there could not have been double nomination on the 14th of July,2022.

d. Using the social media to terrorize and bully the Justices of the Supreme Court by the Appellant is appalling and unprofessional.

e. TheAppealiswithoutmeritandisdismissed,Iabidebythe award of cost in the lead Judgement.

AMINA AUGIE JSC (Judgment)

I have read in draft the Judgement delivered by my brother Adamu JAIRO JSC and I agree completely with the reasoning therein. I however must state the following as I delivered the Judgement in NWOSU V APC which has led to a lot a clamor.

a. I must state that a decision is authority for what it decides, the facts of the case of Nwosu v APC and the instant case are worlds’ apart. In Nwosu, a candidate was nominated by two distinct political party for the same elective position in the same election. The then Appellant had partaken in the primaries of two separate political parties and clinched the Gubernatorial ticket for both Parties. The political parties (APC and AA) had both submitted his form CF001 to INEC as their candidate in the election. This is not the case here. The case here is that the 4th Respondent who earlier was nominated for Borno Central Senatorial District was appointed by the presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent pursuant to his powers in section 142 of the 1999 Constitution as his associate. He did not take part in any Primaries leading to the Vice-Presidential ticket.

b. The Appellant herein was a beneficiary of this position in 1999 when its Candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar ran for Gubernatorial elections of Adamawa state, and was subsequently picked as associate of President Olusegun Obasanjo pursuant to Section 142 of the Constitution. In that case INEC intended to conduct bye election and this Court said no, Alhaji Buni became Governor of Adamawa state on that account.

c. I adopt the lead judgement and the reasoning therein as mine and I abide by the consequential orders therein

OGUNWUNMIJU JSC (Judgement)

I have read the lead judgement and I adopt same as mine including the consequential orders, however I must make contributions as it relates to locus standi on Section 285 (14) (c) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

a. Early this year this issue came up and this court extensively decided in SAMUEL v APC (citation supplied) and I delivered judgement in same. I must state here again that no political has locus under Section 285(14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to challenge the nominations of the 2nd Respondent’s Candidates.

b. No political party can hide under the second part of Section 285(14) c of the 1999 Constitution to pry into the domestic affairs of another political party. This Court has numerous decisions on this and it remains the position.

c. The Appeal is without merit and the Appellant without locus standi to institute and maintain the Appeal.

AGIM JSC (Judgement)

I adopt the lead judgment as mine and I must not fail to refer to the merits of the case as this case, even though without jurisdiction as a matter of public policy and opinion.

a. The herein Appellant alleged that the 4th Respondent herein allowed himself to be nominated in two constituencies in an election cycle contrary to Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022 which prohibits double Nomination.

b. I have perused the entirety of the case of the Appellant and the Record of Appeal and I cannot find any double nomination.

c. The moment the 4th Respondent submitted his withdrawal to his Political party, his nomination stood withdrawn. The subsequent letter written by the 2nd Respondent is for official communication and the Electoral Act only mandates same to be sent 90 days before the election.

d. Exhibit 6 relied upon by the Appellant dated 15th July, 2022 was the date the 4th Respondent was substituted by INEC and not the date he was nominated.

e. There was at no time double or multiple nomination as the withdrawal and notification by the 4th Respondent and the 2nd Respondent to the INEC is in line with section 31 of the Electoral Act. 2022.

f. I abide by the consequential order in the lead Judgement.

Consequently, the judgement orders of the Court are as follows;

a. The Appellant is a nosy-busy-body and a meddlesome interloper as he lacks the Locus standi to maintain or institute the suit under Section 285(14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

b. There was no multiple Nomination as the 4th Respondent withdrew on the 6th of July, 2022 and notification was sent by his political party on the 6th and 10th of July, 2022.

c. The Appellant misled the court on facts that the suit was heard on the merits and that the suit is on all fours with the decision in Nwosu v APC which is sad;

d. The Appellant’s use of social media to bully and intimidate justices of the Supreme Court is appalling;

e. The case of Nwosu v APC is inextricably discordant with the facts in this Court;

f. The Appeal is frivolous and without merit;

g. Appeal is dismissed;

h. Cost of Two Million Naira to be paid to the Respondents.