Senator Abubakar Saddiq Yardua & Ors V. Senator Abdu Umar Yandoma & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

By their amended originating summons filed on the 19th April 2012, the 1st to the 10th respondents in appeal No. SC.4/2014 commenced Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/1042/2011 at the Federal High Court, hereinafter referred to as the trial court, sitting at Abuja, against the appellants and the 11th – 14th respondents seeking answers to the following questions:-

“1. Whether upon a proper construction of Section 68(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the 1st Defendant has the power to review, either directly or indirectly, the return of the Plaintiffs by their respective returning officers, by purporting to withdraw the certificates of return issued to them consequent upon the said return.

2. Whether upon a proper construction of Section 75(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended the 1st Defendant has the power to nullify, withdraw or render void and invalid the certificates of return issued to the Plaintiffs upon their being returned under Section 68(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended as winners of election into their respective Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts of Katsina State of Nigeria without a valid order emanating from a court of competent jurisdiction so directing it.
3. Whether upon a proper construction of Section 75(1) & (2) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the 1st Defendant has the power to issue certificates of return to 5th – 14th Defendants when a competent court of law had not invalidated or voided the certificates of return issued the plaintiff nor directed it to issue them with certificates of return.
4. Whether upon a proper construction of the Section 75(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, read along with Section 68(1) of the same Act as amended the certificates of return issued the 5th – 14th Defendants by the 1st Defendants in violation of the aforesaid provisions were validly issued and could be used as a basis for the swearing in of the 5th – 14th Defendants as members of the National Assembly, by the 2nd – 4th Defendants.”

Sequel to answers to the foregoing, the plaintiffs prayed the court for the following reliefs:-

“1. A Declaration that by virtue of Section 68(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended the 1st Defendant lacks the power to review the return of the plaintiffs, either directly or indirectly, as the candidates who won the elections into the Senate and House of Representatives to represent their Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts, by purporting to withdraw their certificates of return and that the said return of the Plaintiffs can only be reviewed by the courts prescribed in Section 68(1) of the aforesaid Act.

2. A Declaration that by virtue of Section 75(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the 1st Defendant lacks the power to cancel, nullify, review, withdraw, void, invalidate, either directly or indirectly, the certificates of return validly issued the Plaintiffs consequent upon their winning elections to represent their respective Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts in Katsina State, without an order or court first sought and obtained.
3. A Declaration that by virtue of Section 75(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the 1st Defendant lacks the power to issue certificates of return to the 5th – 14th Defendants in relation to the Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts over which the Plaintiffs had earlier on been issued with valid certificates of return, when neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court had nullified the certificates of return issued to the Plaintiffs.
4. A Declaration that the sealed certificates of return issued to the Plaintiffs upon their winning election into the National Assembly to represent their various Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts of Katsina State are still valid and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to immediately repossess their seat in the National Assembly to represent their respective Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts without let or hindrance from the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Defendants or any other persons.
5. A Declaration that the 2nd – 4th Defendants ought not to have sworn in the 5th – 14th Defendants into the National Assembly upon the invalid certificates of return issued the 5th – 14th Defendants by the 1st Defendant.
6. AN ORDER nullifying the certificates of return issued by the 1st Defendant to the 5th – 14th Defendants, and
7. AN ORDER directing the 5th – 14th Defendants to immediately vacate their seats in the National Assembly.”

The trial court, Coram Olotu J, in its judgment dated 11th January 2013, granted the plaintiffs all the reliefs they prayed for.

Dissatisfied, some of the defendants at the trial court, the appellants in appeal No. SC.4/2014, by a Notice filed on 14th January 2013 appealed against the decision. The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, hereinafter referred to as the lower court, dismissed their appeal No CA/A/83/2013 and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Aggrieved by the lower court’s judgment, the appellants have further appealed to this Court on an amended Notice filed on 28th April, 2014 containing eleven grounds. The facts of the case that brought about all the three appeals to which this judgment relates need to be better appreciated. They are immediately recounted in remarkable details.

This is the second sojourn of the parties to this appeal to this Court. The 1st – 10th respondents in appeal No. SC.4/2014, earlier to their filing the suit that brought about the instant appeal, commenced Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/126/11, Lado and 42 ors V. CPC and 5 ors, at the Federal High Court sitting at Abuja and presided over by Kafarati J. The Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, had on 13th January 2011, through its National Secretariat, conducted primary elections, inter-alia, for all the available offices in the different senatorial Districts and Federal Constituencies in Katsina State.

Having contested the 13th January 2011 primaries and emerged victorious, the names of the appellants in appeal No. SC.4/2010, see Exhibit “A” annexed to their counter affidavits as the 5th – 15th respondents to the amended originating summons of the plaintiffs, the 1st – 10th respondents in the appeal, were forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 11th respondent, as C.P.C’s candidates in the then impending Elections. Exhibit “B”, also annexed to the same counter affidavit of the appellants, is INEC’s acknowledgment of the receipt of CPC’s letter, Exhibit “A”, forwarding Appellants names as its candidates for the elections into the various senatorial Districts and Federal constituencies seats. Dissatisfied with this turn of events, the 1st – 10th respondents in appeal No. SC.4/2010 instituted Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/126/11 claiming inter-alia that they were the validly nominated candidates of the CPC having won the party’s primaries conducted by the Katsina State congress of the party on the 15th January 2011.

The trial court having found for the 1st – 10th respondents, plaintiffs in the earlier suit, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to remove the names of the appellants and instead, place the names of the 1st – 10th respondents on the ballot for the April 2011 elections.

Appellants’ appeal against this decision of the trial court in the earlier suit was allowed by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal. The respondents at the lower court appealed to this Court. In its judgment on the consolidated appeals Nos. SC.157/11 and SC.334/11, delivered on 16th December 2011, the court, see page 342 of Vol. I of the record of appeal, on finding that the trial court had proceeded without jurisdiction, nullified the trial court’s decision as well as that of the lower court.

It was after and inspite of this decision of the court that the 1st – 10th respondents again instituted Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1042/2011 which has, with the lower court’s affirmation of the trial court’s decision thereon, brought about the instant appeals Nos, SC.4/2014; SC. 7/2014 and SC.725/2013 to which this judgment relates.

Parties who earlier filed and exchanged their briefs of argument adopted and relied on these briefs as their arguments for or against the respective appeals on 20th October 2014 when the appeals were heard.