Barrister Handel Okoli & Anor V. Hon. (Dr.) Okechukwu Udeh & Anor (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLUFUNMILOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, J.C.A.

The Respondent/Cross-Appellant Hon. Dr. Okechukwu Udeh as plaintiff initiated a suit NO.FHC/ABJ/CS/188/07 at the Federal High Court Abuja by way of Writ of Summons challenging his substitution by his party – Peoples Democratic Party, 2nd appellant/cross-respondent, with the name of the 1st Appellant/Cross-Respondent Barrister Handel Okoli. In the Writ of summons and the penultimate paragraph of the statement of claim before the trial court the Respondent/cross-Appellant claimed against the Independent National Electoral Commission, Barrister Handel Okoli and the Peoples Democratic Party as defendants jointly and severally as follows:-

(1) Declaration that the option of changing or substituting a candidate whose name is already submitted to the 1st defendant INEC by a Political Party is only available to a Political Party and/or INEC under the Electoral Act 2006 if the candidate is qualified by a court order.

(2) Declaration that under Section 32(5) of the Electoral Act 2006 it is only a court of law by an order that can disqualify a duly nominated candidate of a Political Party whose name and particulars have been published in accordance with Section 32(3) of the Electoral Act 2006.

(3) Declaration that there are no cogent and verifiable reasons for the 1st and 2nd defendants to change the name of the plaintiff with that of the 2nd defendant as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the April 2007 election into the Federal House of Representatives for Orumba North and South Federal Constituency in Anambra State.

(4) Declaration that it is unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful for the 1st and 3rd defendants to change the names of the plaintiff with that of the 2nd defendant as the Federal House of Representatives candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for Anambra State in the forth coming National Assembly Election in Anambra State after the plaintiff has been duly nominated and sponsored by the People Democratic Party as its candidate and after the 1st Defendant has accepted the nomination and sponsorship of the plaintiff with a clearance certificate issued by the 3rd Defendant and published the name and particulars of the plaintiff in accordance with Section 32(3) of the Electoral Act 2006, the 3rd defendant having failed to give any cogent and verifiable reasons and there being no High Court Order disqualifying the plaintiff.

(5) Declaration that the decision to substitute or the substitution of the name of the plaintiff who has acquired a vested right and without being afforded a hearing before the decision to substitute his name is null and void for violating the provision of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution which guarantees the plaintiff’s right to fair hearing.

(6) An order setting aside the purported steps taken by the 1st and 3rd defendants purporting to substitute the name of the plaintiff with that of the defendant as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the April 21st 2007 general election into the Federal House of Representatives for Orumba North and South Federal constituency in Anambra State

(7) An order for mandatory Injunction compelling the 1st Defendant, its Agents, privies or howsoever called to recognize the plaintiff as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party for the April 21st 2007 General Election into the Federal House of Representatives for Orumba North and South Federal Constituency in Anambra State.

(8) An order of perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally by themselves, their agents, privies or assigns from changing or substituting the name of the plaintiff as the Anambra State Peoples Democratic Party National Assembly candidate for the April 2007 Anambra State Federal House of Representatives Election unless or until a court order is made disqualifying the plaintiff and/or until cogent and verifiable reasons are given as required under Section 34(2) of the Electoral Act 2006.

The defendants filed their defence, however the 2nd defendant/appellant/cross-respondent in addition to his defence filed a counter-claim on 5/4/07 (vide pages 35-41) of the Record of Appeal. The counter claim reads:-

(a) A declaration that having been indicted by a judicial panel and such indictment having been re-accepted by Anambra State House of Assembly who impeached him the plaintiff 2nd defendant is not qualified to contest the April 21st Election into the Orumba North and South Federal Constituency of Anambra State.

(b) An order restraining the INEC the 2nd defendant in the counterclaim from accepting the plaintiff as candidate for the elections or changing the name of the counter-claimant with that of the plaintiff.

In view of time constraint the court acceded to accelerated hearing in the matter by waiving filing of briefs, the matter was heard on written addresses and deposition of witnesses. The facts of this case in brief are that the 1st Respondent/cross-appellant emerged the winner in the primaries conducted by the peoples Democratic Party to select the candidate to be nominated and sponsored to contest the election into the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency of Anambra State. His name was forwarded to INEC 1st Respondent/cross-Respondent and published at Local Government level – The latter gave birth to a number of petitions challenging the eligibility of the 1st Respondent /cross- appellant to contest in the election. The party 2nd appellant/cross-Respondent submitted the name of the 1st appellant/cross-Respondent to INEC to beat the dateline for submission of names of candidates. The party on the other hand investigated the substance of the petitions against its candidate which were premised on his activities during his tenure as Deputy Governor Anambra. The strong issues raised were those of his impeachment, his purported pardon by the Governor of Anambra State and the subsequent