Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa & Ors. V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor. (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUSDAPHER, J.C.A. 

The appellants herein were some of the plaintiffs in the lower court and were 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th and 27th plaintiffs. The appellants are political associations as defined in section 229 of the Constitution and they sought to be recognised or registered as political parties as defined in the said section of the Constitution. On the 17th day of May, the first respondent herein, the Independent National Electoral Commission (hereinafter simply referred to as INEC) issued guidelines for any political association wishing to be transformed into a political party, so as to enable it to sponsor candidates to vie for political offices in the country. Along with the guidelines, INEC also published time-table for the registration or the recognition of political associations as political parties aforesaid. Each of the appellants herein and others applied to INEC and collected application forms for registration as political parties. The forms were duly completed. The appellants along with the other plaintiffs by originating summons challenged the constitutionality of some of the guidelines issued by INEC and also challenged the constitutionality of some sections of the Electoral Act, 2001. The ORIGINATING SUMMONS is in these terms:-

ORIGINATING SUMMONS

“LET the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission of Plot 436, Zambezi Crescent, Maitama District AS, Garki, FCT, Abuja and the 2nd defendant, the Attorney-General of the Federation, c/o Attorney-General’s Chambers, Federal Ministry of Justice, Garki, Abuja, within eight days after service of this summons on it inclusive of the day of such service, cause an appearance to be entered for them to this summons which is issued upon the application of the plaintiffs c/o Nigerian Law Publications Ltd., Bobsar Building (1st Floor), 1035, Minchika Street, Near Assemblies of God Church, off Ahmadu Bello Way, Garki, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court who claim for the determination of the following questions:

QUESTIONS

a. Whether the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) established under section 153 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, is bound to observe the conditions stipulated under sections 222 – 229 of the 1999 Constitution relating to registration of political parties?

b. Whether the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) can by its guidelines enlarge, curtail or amend the provisions stipulated in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 for the registration of political parties?

c. Whether the guidelines released by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on 17th May, 2002, wholly or partly conflict with or violate the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, relating to the registration of political parties?

d. Whether the National Assembly is competent to enact sections 74(2)(g) & (h), 74(6), 77(b), 78(2)(b) and 79(2)(c) of the Electoral Act, 2001, in relation to the registration of political parties when the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, has made provisions covering the field in those areas?

CLAIMS

AND the plaintiffs claim the following reliefs:

1. A DECLARATION that the registration of political parties in Nigeria is governed by the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
2. A DECLARATION that the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) cannot prescribe guidelines for the registration of political parties outside the conditions stipulated by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
3. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 3(a) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that an association seeking registration as a political party must submit “the names, residential addresses and States of origin respectively of the members of its National and State Executive Committees and the records of proceedings of the meeting where these officers were elected” is unconstitutional, and therefore null and void, in so far as it enjoins such association to submit the names, residential addresses and States of origin respectively of the members of its State Executive committees, and the records of proceedings of the meetings where both members of its National and State Executive Committees were elected.
4. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 3(c) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that an association seeking registration as a political party must present “a register showing that its membership is open to every citizen of Nigeria” is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
5. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 3(d)(iv) contained In the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that an association seeking registration as a political party must show “a provision that its Constitution and Manifesto conform with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act of 2001 and these guidelines” is unconstitutional and therefore, null and void in so far as the guideline relates to “the Electoral Act, 2001 and these guidelines.
6. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 3(e) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that an association seeking registration as a political party must have “a register showing the names, residential addresses of persons in at least 24 States of the Federation and FCT, who are members of the association” is unconstitutional and therefore, null and void.
7. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 3(f) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that an association seeking registration as a political party must present “an affidavit sworn to by the Chairman and Secretary of the association to the effect that no member of the National Executive of the association is a member of any other existing party or existing political association” is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
8. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 3(g) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that an association seeking registration as a political party must present “a bank statement indicating the bank account into which all income of the proposed political association has been paid and shall continue to be paid and from which all expenses are paid and shall be paid’ is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
9. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 3(h) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that an association seeking registration as a political party must submit “the addresses of its offices, list of its staff, list of its operational equipment and furniture in at least 24 States of the Federation” is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
10. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 3(h) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, in so far as it prescribes “that a party seeking registration must submit a list of its staff, list of its operational equipment and furniture in its headquarters office at Abuja” is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
11. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 5(b) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that “a person shall not be eligible to be registered as a member of political association seeking to be registered as a political party if he/she is in the civil service of the Federation or of a State” is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
12. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 2(d) contained in the 1st defendant’s ‘Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties’ dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes that each association seeking registration as a political party “must accompany its application with twenty (20) copies of the association’s Constitution is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.”
13. A DECLARATION that guideline No. 2(c) contained in the 1st defendant’s “Guidelines for the registration of Political Parties, dated the 15th day of May, 2002, issued by the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), but released to the public on the 17th day of May, 2002, which prescribes “payment of N100,000.00 (One hundred thousand Naira) by an association, that applies for registration” is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
14. A DECLARATION that sections 74(2)(g) and (h), 74(6), 77(b) and 78(2)(b) of the said Electoral Act, 2001, which enlarge and 79(2)(c) of the said Act, which curtails the provisions of the 1999 Constitution on the registration of political parties are unconstitutional and therefore, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
15. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), its agents, officers, privies from basing the registration of political parties either in whole or in part on guidelines nos. 3(a), 3(c), 3(d)(iv), 3(e), 3(f), 3(g), 3(h), 5(b), 2(c) and 2(d) or from acting on the said guidelines in the consideration or process of the registration of political parties.
16. AN ORDER compelling the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to refund the sum of N100,000.00 (One hundred thousand Naira) paid by each of the associations that applied for the registration as political parties.
17. AN ORDER compelling the 1st defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to return 19 of the 20 copies of the association’s Constitution submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by the political associations that have applied for the registration as political parties.

In support of the originating summons, an affidavit was filed and attached to it are (1) the guidelines issued by INEC, (2) the timetable issued by INEC for the registration of political associations as political parties.

Shortly after filing the originating summons, the plaintiffs filed a motion on notice praying for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain INEC, “its agents, servants, officers or privies howsoever called from conducting any verification exercise on the claims contained in the forms filled and submitted by the plaintiffs/applicants which touch or relate to the guidelines being the subject matter of the claims in the originating summons pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons.” Attached to the affidavit in support of the interlocutory application for injunction are the application forms duly filled by three of the plaintiffs. On the same day, the 30th day of May, 2002, an ex-parte motion for an order of interim injunction on the same terms was also filed by the plaintiffs together with an affidavit of urgency. An order of interim injunction was made by the trial Judge on the same date that is the 30th May, 2002, pending the hearing and the determination of the motion on notice filed on the 3rd June, 2002. In the meantime and on the 31st May, 2002, the 1st respondent herein INEC filed a notice of preliminary objection to the competency of the suit. The grounds of objection are:-

“1. The plaintiffs failed to comply with the conditions precedent to the institution of this action in that they failed to comply with Order 12 rule 8 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000.