Is an Action Based on the Determination of Membership of a Political Party Justiciable

CASE TITLE:  ECHENDU v. UGONNA & ORS (2022) LPELR-58890(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:  3RD NOVEMBER, 2022

JUSTICES:  RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, JCA

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, JCA

IBRAHIM WAKILI JAURO, JCA

COURT DIVISION:  OWERRI

PRACTICE AREA:  ELECTORAL MATTER

FACTS:

The 1st Respondent, Hon. Ozurigbo Ugonna, had participated in the primary elections of the 2nd Respondent (Peoples Democratic Party) for the position of Member representing Isu/Njaba/Nkwere/Nwangele Federal Constituency and had won in the said position. The Appellant’s grouse was that the 1st Respondent has breached the provisions of Section 65 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. ​

This is because, at the time he participated in the primaries he was a serving member of the House of Representatives representing Imo State on the Platform of the All Progressive Congress (APC). That the 1st Respondent having not resigned his membership of the 2nd Respondent, he cannot participate in the said primary election of the 2nd Respondent held on the 25th of May 2022, for the position of member representing Isu/Njaba Federal Constituency without first resigning as a member of All Progressive Congress Party. That the 1st Respondent is not qualified to participate in the primary election.

At the end of trial, the trial Court delivered its judgment against the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, while the 1st Respondent cross-appealed.

ISSUES:

The main appeal was determined on the following issues viz:

1. Whether the lower Court was correct after having found that Exhibits E9 and Exhibit E10 were genuine documents emanating from the All Progressive Congress and that 1st Respondent was still a member of the APC at the time he participated in the primaries of the 2nd Respondent, the Court failed to hold that the 1st Respondent was not qualified to participate in the primaries of the 2nd Respondent despite the overwhelming documents placed before it.
2. Whether the lower Court was correct when it held that the Claimant’s case was not justiciable and the Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate over the suit.
3. Whether the lower Court was correct when it proceeded to only answer questions 1 and 4 of the questions for the determination of the Court for the reasons that questions 2 and 3 are not “anchored on legal instruments”.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that a combined reading of the provisions of Section 65 (2) (b) and Part IV Section 13 (h) of the 2nd Respondent’s Guidelines make membership of a political party a mandatory requirement for the participation of any person in the primaries of the 2nd Respondent. counsel further submitted that the effect is that issue of qualification of a person to participate in the primaries of a political party is both a pre and post-election issue and the interpretation of the constitution and guidelines of a political party with respect to the qualification of an aspirant to participate in the primaries of a political party is both a pre and post-election matter.

Learned counsel submitted that the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because Section 65 (2) (b) of the Constitution and the Guidelines of the 2nd Defendant allows only members of the PDP to participate in the primaries of the PDP and that the Appellant had exhibited the guidelines of the 2nd Respondent to show that only a member of the 2nd Respondent can participate in the primaries of the 2nd Respondent. Learned counsel argued that a political party must not be allowed to act arbitrarily. That the Court has jurisdiction to intervene where a political party is in breach of its Constitution or Guideline.

Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022, is applicable to the Primaries of a Political Party irrespective of the method chosen by the party for the conduct of the election, as this provision does not draw a distinction between Direct and Indirect Primaries and that the Court below had jurisdiction to adjudicate over the suit for the reason that the Primaries complained about is one contemplated by Section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act 2022. That the Court below was in error to have declined jurisdiction.

In their reaction, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted.

DECISION/HELD

In conclusion, the main was dismissed.

RATIO

1. ELECTORAL MATTERS – MEMBERSHIP OF A POLITICAL PARTY: Whether an action based on the determination of membership of a party is justiciable

“Decidedly, ‘the issue of inviting the Court to make declarations as to the provisions of the PDP Constitution, which provisions regulate the internal workings of the party, would amount to the Court prying into the domestic affairs of the party. No matter how surreptitiously and nicodemously couched the Court shall always lift the veil to see the spirit in the Reliefs sought’. Per Pemu JCA, in EDDY OLAFESO & ORS VS. MAKANJUOLA OGUNDIPE & ORS (Supra).

Decidedly, membership of a political party is not for the Courts to decide, as such matters are within the exclusive preserve of the party concerned. It is a domestic affair of the party concerned. The Courts will not be involved in deciding who the members of a political party are. ANYANWU V. OGUNEWE (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1410) 437 @ 470 KEKERE EKIN JSC in ANYANWU V. OGUNEWE (supra) had this to say inter alia
“No member of a political party has the locus standi to question the party’s prerogative right on the issue of its choice of candidate for elective offices, not even in the face of breaching of its rules and regulations.
There is no doubt that membership of a political party is not justiciable”. The Court below was right to have held that the suit was not justiciable and I so hold.” Per PEMU, J.C.A.