Independent National Electoral Commission V. Action Congress (Ac) & Anor (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABDULLAHI, P.C.A.

The plaintiffs who are now respondents and cross-appellants in this appeal took out an originating summons asking for the following reliefs:-

“I. A declaration that the defendant has no power under the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; 1999, the Electoral Act, 2006, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (Establishment, Etc) Act, Cap. 15, Laws of the Federation, 2004 to conduct any verification of the credentials/papers and/or screening out and/or disqualifying candidates including the 2nd plaintiff for the 2007 general elections.

II. A declaration that by the provisions of section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2006, only the 1st plaintiff a political party has the power to verify and or screen out its candidates before sponsoring them for election by forwarding their names to the defendant.

III. A declaration that the defendant has no power under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, Electoral Act, 2006 and the Independent National Electoral Commission (Establishment, Etc) Act Cap. 1-15, Laws of the Federation, 2004 to disqualify or screen out the 2nd plaintiff as a candidate or any other candidate for the 2007 general elections.

IV. A declaration that the power to disqualify any candidate sponsored by any political party including the 1st plaintiff from contesting any election exclusively vested in the court as provided for in section 32(5) of the Electoral Act, 2006.

V. An order setting aside the directive of the defendant to all the political parties including the 1st plaintiff to present their candidates for physical verification and or screening.

VI. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant whether by themselves, their agents, privies, officers, or by whosoever from conducting physical verification and or screening of candidates put forward by political parties to contest in the 2007 general elections including the 2nd plaintiff.

VII. And for such further or other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

After parties joined issues, both addressed the court and in a reserved and considered judgment, learned trial Judge concluded as follows:-

“Having given due consideration to the processes filed, notably the originating summons, the affidavit in support as well as the counter-affidavit, it is imperative to bring out the fact that the defendant is allotted a vital role to play under Item 15(a) – of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution which provides “The commission shall have power to organize, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the President and Vice President, the Governor and Deputy Governor of a State, and to the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each State of the Federation”

This provision has assigned a very important duty to the defendant.

In the case of INEC v. Musa (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806) 72, the Supreme Court while considering Guidelines of INEC on Registration of Political Association as Political Parties drew a distinction between guidelines which are administrative or procedural or evidential in nature and guidelines which set substantive conditions beyond those set by the Constitution.

It must be borne in mind that INEC, the defendant as a public body, has been saddled with enormous responsibilities in relation to elective offices under the 1999 Constitution. In order to ascertain that the facts presented to it by candidates are correct as required by both the Constitution 1999 and the Electoral Act, 2006, it will not be out of place for it to cross-cheek, verify or even screen candidates to ascertain the authenticity of the facts presented to it.