Engineer Hanafi Aminu Mohammed V. Resident Electoral Commissioner [kaduna State] & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.

The Appellant, a member of the ANPP (the 3rd Respondent), contested and won the party’s primaries as its candidate for the Kaduna State House of Assembly, Ungwan Sanusi, Sabon Gari Constituency, however, by a letter dated 12th February 2007, the party wrote INEC applying to substitute him for the 4th Respondent as its candidate at the election due to be conducted in April 2007. The letter in question is addressed to the Resident Electoral Commissioner, INEC Kaduna State, and it reads –

“With due respect, I write to inform you that the party had sat along with her candidates for various offices in the State and agreed that following candidates are to be substituted accordingly. These are with their full knowledge and consent they are – (Nine names, listed) S/N Present name Substitution Name Constituency

(8) Engr. Hanafi Aminu Muhammad Hon. Nasir Abdullahi Ugwan Sanusi Sir, these are our changes, which is without any ill feelings from any quarters. Hope that will effect (sic) the changes accordingly. “. (Italics mine)

About five weeks later, on the 26th of March 2007, the Appellant filed an Originating Summons at the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna, wherein he applied for the determination of the following questions –

On being served, the 1st & 2nd Respondents entered Appearance; the 3rd Respondent did not file any papers; and the 4th Respondent filed a Memorandum of Appearance and a 10-paragraph Counter-Affidavit deposed to by one Rabiu Haruna, a Litigation Secretary in the Law Firm of Falalu Bello & Co, wherein it was averred in paragraphs 4 to 6 that-

4. It was one Hanafi Aminu and not the Plaintiff that contested the said primaries but his name had to be withdrawn as a candidate when the said Hanafi was adamant in refusing to supply the information required by the 2nd Defendant in Exhibit H1 attached to the originating summons –
5. The said Hanafi has also refused to have his Exhibit H1 sworn to before the Commission (sic) for Oaths as required by law.
6. When these anomalies were discovered, all the candidates were invited for a meeting and the party and all the contestants mutually agreed that the 4th Defendant should be the candidate of the party.

The Appellant then filed a 4-paragraph Further and Better Affidavit, wherein the same deponent averred as follows in paragraphs 3 (a)-(d):

(a) That the INEC Form 001 previously attached to the Originating Summons and marked as Exhibit H1 was duly sworn to before the Commissioner for Oaths prior to the submission of same to the 1st & 2nd Defendants and what he is now exhibiting before the Court is his own file copy.

(b) That he made the necessary payment to the National Headquarters of the 3rd Defendant before he could get intent form to contest in the sum of N100, 000.00. A copy of the Deposit slip is attached as … Exhibit H5.

(c) That when he submitted Exhibit H5 to the Kaduna State Secretariat of the 3rd Defendant along with payment of additional fifty thousand Naira for party Intent from Kaduna State House of assembly Membership from U/Sanusi Constituency, he was given Exhibit H2 by the party. A copy of the receipt for the payment of N50, 000.00 is also – as Exhibit H6.

(d) That he has satisfied all conditions prescribed by his party ANPP and the INEC for the purpose of contesting for April 2007.

After hearing addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge, Liman, J., delivered his Judgment on the 19th of 2007, wherein he held as follows –

“- Exhibit H4 is self explanatory; it states the reason for the substitution – consensus of all the candidates. The reason that candidates have agreed to a substitution is to me a cogent reason. The law does not impose the duty on INEC to verify the reason, what it requires is that the cogent reason given must be one which can be verified in case a dispute arises. So once a reason is cogent it must only be verifiable and nothing more. The Plaintiff did not – contend that he challenged the truth or the reason and INEC refused to investigate the substance of his complaint. – I hold that Exhibit H4 is valid in that it disclosed cogent and verifiable reason for the substitution”.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing five Grounds of appeal. Briefs of arguments were duly filed and served and in the Appellant’s brief settled by Murtala A. Yusuf, Esq., it was submitted that the following three issues arise for determination –