ELECTION PROCEEDINGS IN NIGERIA: A REVIEW OF RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS

The Nigerian election jurisprudence experienced an expansion in 2023. This is not unconnected with transformations brought about by the decisions of the various election petition courts and tribunals on petitions, which arose, from either the primaries of political parties or the conduct of the 2023 general election. Hence, while the Courts and Tribunals largely expounded the law, there were modifications in application to suit appropriately the circumstances of each case. These positions of law undoubtedly impacted Nigerian legal jurisprudence and constitute a foundation for future decisions on related subjects.

This article will review and examine some of the recent decisions of the courts and tribunals on election-related matters viz:

AIDA NATH OGWUCHE V HON. FRANCIS OTTA AGBO & ORS (2023) 17 NWLR (PT. 1913) 339 SC 

In this case, the Court had to consider the provisions of Section 66 (1) (f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as Amended relating to the disqualification of candidates in the public service from contesting an election into the Senate or the House of Representatives and has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from such employment thirty days before the election. The Respondent, being the Petitioner at the lower Court argued that the Appellant (Respondent at the trial and appellate Courts) was not validly nominated by the political party, upon winning the party’s primary elections as she did not resign her employment with the Federal Inland Revenue Service, an employment which she had temporarily withdrawn in 2020 when she was appointed a special assistant to the Governor.

The Court, in allowing the appeal, alluded to the fact that the Section under reference provides for three methods of leaving public service employment. They are resignation, withdrawal or retirement, and while resignation and retirement suggest a permanent departure, withdrawal in the ordinary sense means a temporary departure. The Court thus stated that the appellant complied with Constitutional requirements since her withdrawal was extant at the time of contesting in her party’s primary elections. The Court further distinguished the case of Modibbo v. Usman (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1712) 470 from the case under reference on the basis that Modibbo v Usman relates to whether a Corp member can contest for the primary election of a political party, which is prohibited by Section 2(3) & 13 (1) National Youth Service Corps Act and the National Youth Service Corps Act (Bye Law 2011) No S 4 of 2011. The Court concluded that the lower Court is only under obligation to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court where the question resolved in the precedent case is the same as the question to be resolved in the pending case; the resolution of the question was necessary to the determination of the precedent case and the present case depends on the resolution of that question for its determination; the significant or material facts in the precedent case also present in the pending case; and no additional facts appear in the pending case that might be treated as significant.

In PETER GREGORY OBI & ANOR v. INEC & ORS, PETITION NO: CA/PEPC/O3/2023 the Presidential Election Petition Court was faced with several questions of law bordering on the qualifications for election as well as the validity of the election of the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents. The Court in upholding the outcome of the election held on the 25^th of February, 2023 reiterated several notable pronouncements on issues of law, which no doubt will have an impact on future judicial decisions especially on election petitions. One of such notable pronouncements is on the status of subpoenaed witnesses and the requirement of having their written depositions frontloaded. The Court, while reiterating the provisions of the CFRN and the Electoral Act 2022 on the time limit for the presentation of election petitions, the provisions of the Schedule to the Electoral Act on the contents of an election petition and the prohibition of an amendment of a petition after the time stipulated among other provisions of law, noted that although electoral laws allow for the application of the Federal High Court Rules (which Rules do not mandate the filing of the subpoenaed witness’ statement on oath at the commencement of the Suit) with such modification as is necessary to bring same into conformity with the sui generis nature of election petition, the Electoral Act is a substantive law and its provisions, therefore, takes precedence over the rules of Court. The Court further noted specifically that a subpoenaed witness has the status of any other witness and it is immaterial whether a witness is willing or subpoenaed as the witness statements intended to be relied upon by a Petitioner must have been frontloaded at the time of the presentation of the Petition.

In the case of ABDULRAHMAN MUHAMMAD TUMBIDO V. INEC & ORS (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1907) 301 SC, the Court was saddled with the responsibility of determining the validity of the primary elections held for Bungudu/Maru Federal Constituency of Zamfara State. While considering the submissions of parties, the Court noted that the 1^st Respondent (INEC) had earlier argued that the case before the Court related to the internal affairs of a political party, in which the Court cannot interfere. It thereafter proceeded to state in its brief that it did not intend to take a stand in the appeal and would abide by whatever decision the Court made. The Court found the 1^st Respondent’s submission contradictory and against the persistent admonition of courts to maintain a neutral ground in election-related matters. The Court further restated the duty of INEC especially in the conduct of primary elections of political parties to not extend beyond the monitoring of same and must not be seen as “descending from its elevated pedestal of neutrality and going out of its way to support or oppose one of the parties” as “INEC should let contending parties fight their battles without taking sides” owing to these factors, the court, therefore, struck out the 1^st Respondent’s brief of argument.

The Court in this case further reiterated the fundamental position of the law which frowns at parties dumping evidence on the Court. As the Court is not obligated to assess the evidence of parties and relate it to the specifics of their case, each party is bound to relate his evidence adduced to the relevant aspects of his case otherwise same will discountenanced by the Court.