Peoples Democratic Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

My lords, this Appeal is one of fundamental proportion. It is an appeal with the potential of deepening both the democratic processes and practices in this Country.

It is a peculiar one of its own kind. At the lower court, the Federal High Court Makurdi Division, one political party, PDP, had challenged, what it termed, acts of non-compliance by another political party, APC, with some relevant provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and also with some relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and sought to enforce these provisions relating to the conduct of primary elections, including giving of relevant notices and holding of Special Congresses by political parties in Nigeria.

The respondents, APC and its affected members, had vehemently challenged the locus standi of another political party, PDP and its members, to intermeddle in the internal affairs of their political party, APC.

The parties joined issues on these preliminary objections. At the conclusion of the trial, the lower court had in its judgment delivered on 14/11/2022 rejected the challenge to the locus standi of the PDP and its members by the APC and its members and dismissed the preliminary objections. However, it ultimately dismissed the appellants’ suit for lacking in merit.

Now, in this appeal, there are challenges and counter challenges bordering on the competence or otherwise of the main-appeal itself, the cross-appeals and the competence of the appellants’ suit as instituted before the lower court, and which merit or otherwise is the subject matter of the main appeal.

In the circumstances, I intend to ensure that I put the horse before the cart in my consideration and determination of all the issues in the appeal and the cross-appeals. I will therefore, consider all the challenges to the competence of the main appeal first, and thereafter I shall proceed to consider the challenges to the competence of each of the cross-appeal.

Then, I will consider the merit of the cross-appeals, which in the main are all challenging the competence of the appellants’ suit filed before the lower court.

I will then conclude this judgment with the consideration of the issues in the main appal as to the merit or otherwise of the claims of the appellants. In my view to do otherwise would simply amount to putting the cart before the horse, the result of which is that there would be no movement in determining the issues thrown up by this appeal and the cross-appeals.

I shall therefore, proceed in this judgment in the following order, namely:

1. The preliminary objections to the competence of the main-appeal
2. The preliminary objections to the competence of the cross-appeals
3. The merit or otherwise of the cross-appeals challenging the competence of the appellants’ suit, the subject matter of the main appeal.
4. The merit or otherwise of the main appeal.

Preliminary objections to the main appeal

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the judgment of the Federal High Court, Makurdi Division, Coram: J. K. Omotosho J, in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/890/2022: Peoples Democratic Party & Ors v. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors. delivered on 14/11/ 2022, in which the claims of the appellants as claimants against the respondents as defendants were dismissed for lacking in merit.

The appellants were dissatisfied with the said judgment and had appealed against it vide their notice of appeal filed on 25/11/2022 on 15 grounds of appeal. See pages 1815 – 1832 of the record of appeal. The record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to this court on 2/12/2022.

The parties filed and exchanged their briefs, which were adopted as their arguments at the hearing of this appeal on12/1/2023. The appellants/cross-respondents were represented by T. D. Pepe SAN, appearing with I. S. Kojo, Esq., T. T. Igber, Esq, S. E. Irabor, Esq., P. N. Jooji, Esq, B. A. Iorheghem, Esq., Alfred Tijah, Esq., I. R. Adekwagh, Esq., J. O. Akaaunde, Esq., J. O. Iorliam, Esq., J. V. Ogizi, Esq., E. N. Du, Esq., R. U. Utile, Esq., O. N. Nor, Esq., T. Ikpala, Esq., Unamber Uhamber, Esq., P. O. Baaji Esq., M. I. Isetim, Esq., J. J. Msuean, Esq., P. I. Terna, Esq., B. M. T. Nyaku, Esq., M. T. Dagaar, Esq., R. T. Angber and N. Kperai, Esq. The 2nd respondents were represented by Matthew Burkaa SAN, appearing with Mimi Ayua, Esq., David N. Meshi, Esq., Adigizi S. Dube, Esq., Dennis Ogazza, Esq., Haliru A. Gambo, Esq., Azaki Beshi, Esq., And Saratu O. Othman, Esq.