Sani v. APC & Ors (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

The appellant commenced an action at the trial Court, by way of Originating Summons filed on June 28th, 2022, seeking answers to the following questions:

1. WHETHER regard being had to the provisions of Section 84 (5) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the plaintiff who was the aspirant of the first defendant that scored the highest number of votes cast at the primary election conducted by the first defendant on May 28th, 2022, to elect a candidate for nomination to the second defendant for Taraba North Senatorial District Election in the National Assembly Election slated to be conducted in February 2023, by the second defendant is entitled to have his name submitted to the second defendant as its candidate in the said election?
2. WHETHER regard being had to the provisions of Section 84 (5) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the purported submission by the first defendant of the name of the third defendant who came a distant 4th position in the primary election conducted by the first defendant on 28th May, 2022 to the second defendant as its candidate for Taraba North Senatorial District in the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria election slated for February 2023 when the plaintiff has not abandoned his mandate does not constitute a violation of the Provision of Section 84 (5) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which mandates a political party to forward the name of an aspirant with the highest number of votes cast in the primary election of a political party to the second defendant as its candidate?
3. WHETHER regard being had to the provision of Section 84 (5) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the first defendant can validly ignore, disregard, and/or refuse to be bound by the result of the primary election conducted by it on 28th May, 2022, and submit the name of the third defendant who came to a distant fourth position in the primary election conducted by the first defendant on 28th May, 2022, when the third defendant was not the aspirant with the highest number of votes cast at the said primary election?

Upon the determination of the questions, the appellant sought the following reliefs:

1. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the submission of the name of the third defendant on June 17th, 2022 by the first defendant to the second defendant, as its candidate for Taraba North Senatorial District in the National Assembly Election of the Federation slated for February 2023, is a violation of the provisions of Section 31 and Section 84 (5) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
2. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the first defendant cannot ignore and/or refuse to recognize the result of the primary election conducted by it on 28th May, 2022, wherein the plaintiff won the majority of the lawful votes cast.
3. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that having won the majority of lawful votes cast at the Primary Election conducted by the first defendant on 28th May, 2022 by the first defendant to the second defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to have his name submitted to the second defendant by the first defendant as its candidate for Taraba North Senatorial District in the National Assembly Election of the Federation slated for February 2023, to be conducted by the second defendant.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the third defendant from parading himself as the candidate of the first defendant for the election into the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for Taraba North Senatorial District in the election slated for February 2023, to be conducted by the second defendant.

5. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the first and second defendants to recognize the plaintiff as the candidate of the first defendant for the election into the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for Taraba North Senatorial District in the election slated for February 2023, to be conducted by the second defendant.
6. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the first and second defendants from recognizing, accepting or treating the third defendant as the candidate of the first defendant for the election into the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for Taraba North Senatorial District in the National Assembly Election of the Federation slated for February 2023, to be conducted by the second defendant.
7. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court that the plaintiff is the lawful candidate of the first defendant that participated at all stages of the process for the election into the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for Taraba North Senatorial District.

8. AND such further Order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

The case of the appellant from the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons was that he contested and won the direct primary election that was organized by the first respondent, who had appointed one Hon. Sule A. Ndigmay and Hon. Hashimu Usman Adamu as Chairman and Secretary, respectively, to conduct and superintend the primary elections of Taraba North Senatorial District, which is to be conducted by direct primaries in all the three senatorial districts.

It was also averred that four out of the five people who were appointed by the first respondent were attacked and kidnapped by the third respondent, hence the appointment of Hon. Sule A. Ndigmay and Hon. Hashimu Usman Adamu to conduct the primaries.

​The appellant maintained that the sole member of the Election Committee who was not abducted was Senator Clever Okisikpo, then appointed ad hoc Committee members comprising of the above mentioned duo. The duo conducted the said primary election and declared the appellant as winner of the contest. This is reflected in Exhibits AS9, AS19-AS30 and AS32-AS55.

According to the appellant, the second respondent monitored the election and issued Exhibit AS18, as evidence of the conduct of the primary election.

The first respondent, on the other hand, vehemently, contended in her counter-affidavit filed on July 5th, 2022, that the primary election which the appellant is relying on to claim that he won the party’s senatorial ticket was invalid as it was not conducted by the party. The first respondent argued that she never appointed the duo of Hon. Sule A. Ndigmay and Hashimy Sule Adamu to conduct the party’s primary elections for Taraba North Central Senatorial District.

By the party’s correspondence to the second respondent, the primaries for the senatorial seat in Taraba State were to be conducted by indirect primaries, not direct primaries as claimed by the first respondent. It is the first respondent’s strong contention that the indirect primaries conducted by her appointed five-man panel headed by Dr. Muhammed Alkali; and Mr. Yahaya Suleman who was the secretary on May 28th, 2022, which produced the third respondent as the winner is the valid primary election. And in any case, Senator Clever Ikisikpo, who was not even the secretary of the five-man panel, has no power to delegate an ad hoc team.

The third respondent’s counter-affidavit was basically to the effect that he won the primaries of the first respondent conducted on May 28th, 2022, and the delegates who conducted and monitored the primary election that emerged the appellant as its winner is invalid, having not been conducted in compliance with the Guidelines of the first respondent. The second respondent did not file any counter-affidavit at the trial Court.

The submissions of the first respondent and third respondent were not enough to sway the trial Court from delivering judgment in favour of the appellant and granting all reliefs sought by the appellant.

Dissatisfied by the decision of the trial Court, the first respondent appealed to the tower Court. After hearing the appeal, the lower Court proceeded, on December 29th, 2022, to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

​Dissatisfied with part of the decision of the lower Court, the appellant is now before this Court, vide a Notice of Appeal filed on January 11th, 2023.

The appellant’s brief of argument was filed on January 24th, 2023. Therein, five issues were raised for determination, to wit: