Francis Doukpolagha V. Rufus Ada George & Ors. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NASIR, P.C.A.

Before the election held on 14th December, 1991, the two registered political parties, the National Republican Convention (NRC) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) were obliged by law; including the guidelines from the National Electoral Commission (NEC) to hold primary elections for the purposes of fielding candidates for the election to the office of Governors and membership of the State House of Assembly. In the Rivers State, both political parties held their primary elections (hereinafter referred to as the primaries). In the Rivers State, the primaries held for the nomination or election of the NRC flag bearer for the election of the Governor on 14th December, was a contest between eight contestants including Mr. Francis Doukpolagha and Mr. Rufus Ada George. The primaries are internal affairs of each political party in the sense that only registered members of the party are expected to vote or be voted for and the rules for the primary are based on the Constitution of the Party, the guidelines given by NEC or the Party. There is no outside interference even though NEC, the Nigeria Police and the State Security Service were expected to be present as observers (see generally paragraph 10-14 of the Petition). Be that as it may. The final result of the Primaries presented Mr. Rufus Ada George as the successful candidate and he contested the election as the flag bearer of the NRC. Mr. Francis Doukpolagha consistently protested. After the election, Mr. Rufus Ada George was successful and was elected as the Governor of the Rivers State.

Mr. F. Doukpolagha could not swallow his defeat at the Primaries. He brought a petition challenging the election of Mr. Rufus Ada George on the ground of what happened (i) in relation to NEC. (ii) in relation to the Primaries and (iii) for malpractices at the Governorship election. Mr. Doukpolagha has the right so to complain and to bring an election petition as a voter and/or a person who had voted at the election.

In his petition, he complained among other things, that:

(i) That the 1st Respondent gave false information in his nomination form that he was not affected by the provisions of Participation in Politics and Election (Prohibition) Act, Cap. 342 also known as Decree 25 of 1987. Governor of Rivers State in that he was a person affected by the provisions of Participation in Politics and Election (Prohibition) Act, Cap.342, 1990 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, also known as Decree No. 25 of 1987; and

(ii) That the 1st Respondent was not qualified to contest the elections held on 14/12/91 because he did not win the primaries conducted by the 3rd Respondent on 5/12/91 to select a candidate to contest the governorship elections held on 14/12/91.

The 1st Respondent, for example, has concluded in paragraph 5 of his Reply that:

“5. This respondent will contend at the trial of this petition that this Honourable Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain or determine –

(a) any question whether the 1st respondent was or was not affected by the provisions of the Participation in Politics and Elections (Prohibition) Act.

(b) the question of, relating to, or concerned with, whether or not this respondent was the proper candidate to have been sponsored by the NRC, and

(c) in the alternative to (b), the question as to who ought to have been the candidate sponsored by the NRC save at the instance of the NRC.

At the trial both Chief F.R.A. Williams, SAN, for the 1st Respondent and Mr. S.A. Dappa-Addo, the Ag. Director of Civil Litigation, for the 2nd Respondent have raised preliminary issue that; per F.R.A. Williams:-

“(i) That the questions of law pleaded in paragraph 5 of the (1st)Respondent’s Reply shall be disposed of before trial;

(ii) That, in the alternative, the petition be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and is frivolous and an abuse of process of the court; and