Justiciability of the Conduct of a Political Party’s Congress not Conducted in Accordance with the Party’s Guidelines

CASE TITLE:       IFEGWU v. PDP & ORS (2023) LPELR-59862(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:      27TH JANUARY, 2023

JUSTICES:                   RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, JCA

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, JCA

ADEMOLA SAMUEL BOLA, JCA

COURT DIVISION:  OWERRI

PRACTICE AREA:           PRE-ELECTION MATTERS

FACTS:

The Appellant, as Plaintiff, commenced this suit before the Court below on the 3rd June, 2022.

​The case of the Appellant, in substance, as deposed to in his affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, is that there was a proper and laid-down process for the holding of any primary election of the 1st Respondent, which is the conduct of a valid Ward Congress from whence the delegates elected will then vote for their preferred candidate at the primary election. It was his contention that this process was not followed and in consequence, there was no primary election by the 1st Respondent for the Ohafia South State Constituency of Abia State.

The Respondents filed Counter Affidavits in response to the Originating Summons. The 1st and 3rd Respondents, in addition, filed Notices of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the action, contending, inter alia, that issues relating to the election of Ad-Hoc delegates are non-justiciable, being internal affairs of the party and that the Appellant lacked the locus standi to institute the suit, not being an aspirant.

The lower Court in its judgment upheld the Preliminary Objections of the Respondents as to the justiciability of the suit and held that the Appellant lacked the locus standi to institute this suit. Pronouncing on the merits of the case, it held that the Respondents, from the affidavit evidence before it, complied with the relevant laws in conducting its 3-man Ad-hoc delegate election and primary election. The Appellant, it held, failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him and dismissed the Appellant’s suit.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the Appellant did not have the locus standi to institute the action?

2. Whether the trial Court was right to have dismissed the suit of the Appellant?

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

The Appellants’ counsel submitted that the Appellant is an “aspirant”, who in line with the provisions of Section 285(14) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 has the requisite locus standi to institute this suit. He submitted that the trial Court was wrong to have held that the Appellant was not an aspirant until he has shown that he contested the primary election, because this is not the requirement of the law and to make such an imposition for an event that did not take place is gravely unfair to the Appellant.

​Counsel cited the case of PDP & Anor v. Sylva & Anor (2012) 13 NWLR (Part 1316) 85 at 126 in arguing that an aspirant is a person with a strong desire to achieve a position of importance or to win a competition, which is the stance of the Appellant who bought the Nomination forms to contest for the 1st Respondent’s primary election for the Ohafia South State Constituency of Abia State, House of Assembly.

He contended, in addition, that where there is a laid down process for the conduct of an election, that guideline must be followed for there to be a valid election. The process of holding a valid congress and primaries election is a statutory one, recognized both in the Electoral Act and the Guidelines of the 1st Respondent but one which the 1st Respondent did not abide by when it failed to issue the required statutory notice to the 2nd Respondent and to conduct a valid congress. The lower Court ought to have, in line with the ratios espoused in cases such as Mato v. Hember & Ors (2018) 5 NWLR Part 1612 Page 258 at 295 Para G-H; APC V. Karfi (2017) 16 NWLR Part 1592 Page 457, held that the 1st Respondent ran foul of its own guidelines and that the Appellant proved his case.

The 1st Respondent’s counsel submitted that by the provisions of Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022, only aspirants who contested an election can challenge the election, as held in Uba v. Moghalu & Ors (2022) LPELR 57876 (SC), PDP & 4 Ors v. Jamilu Garba Garo & 2 Ors Appeal No: CA/KN/132/2022 by UGO, JCA on 4th July, 2022. The Appellant, therefore, lacks the locus standi to institute this action, not being an aspirant who participated in the party primaries of the 1st Respondent. He alleged that this fact was conceded in his affidavit where he stated that he was screened to contest but that the election did not take place because the election of the 3-man Ad-hoc delegates that will participate in the election did not hold.

​Learned counsel to the 1st Respondent also contended that the kind of notice stipulated by the Electoral Act is not for the election of a 3-man ad-hoc delegate congress. However, assuming without conceding that there was an obligation to give such notices, the notices were sent to the 2nd Respondent who monitored the ward congress and primary election of the 1st Respondent and issued their reports (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3), raising the presumption of regularity in favour of the Respondents. He cited Section 168 of the Evidence Act; Essien v. Essien & Ors (2008) LPELR (4049) CA; Adamu V. Gulak (2013) LPELR (20844) CA. 1st Respondent’s Counsel further argued that the sending of these notices is for the benefit of the 2nd Respondent who, from the wordings of Section 81 (2) of the Electoral Act, may make do without it. The Appellant is merely a busybody and an interloper who cannot be heard to complain on behalf of the 2nd Respondent.

The 2nd and 3rd Respondents reiterated the position of the 1st Respondent, with 3rd Respondent’s Counsel further citing Section 152 of the Electoral Act, 2022; PDP v. Sylva (2012) NWLR (Part 1316) 126; UBA v. Ozigbo (2022) 10 NWLR (Part 1839) at 459 Para D-G per Okoro, JSC in urging the Court of Appeal to hold that the mere purchase of nomination and expression of interest forms to contest for a primary election without actually taking part physically in the said primary election cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, imbue an Appellant with the status of the aspirant.

On the issue of justiciability, learned Counsel to the 2nd Respondent added that the trial Court was right to have made a finding that the issues brought before the Court are non-justiciable because the subject matter of the suit is the holding of a congress, which is the private matter of a party. He cited APC v. Garba & Ors (2022) LPELR 57513 per Muhammad JSC; APC v. Moses (2021) All NWLR (Part 12) 595; Eyitayo Jegede v. INEC & Ors (2021) LPELR 55481.

3rd Respondent’s counsel lending his voice to the issue of the non-justiciability of this suit, cited the cases of Akinremi v. Suleiman (2022) ALL FWLR (Part 1142) 606; APC v. Moses (2021) ALL FWLR (Part 12) 495; Eyitayo Jegede vs INEC (2021) LPELR – 55481 (SC). He urged the Court to hold that the Appellant never discharged the burden placed upon him by law to prove his case and that the Appellant cannot hold brief for INEC by complaining of inadequate notice.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed.

RATIO

ELECTORAL MATTERS – POLITICAL PARTY: Position of the law regarding justiciability of an action bordering on the conduct of Ward, Local Government or State congresses of a political party

“On whether the matter is justiciable, the lower Court held, at Page 219 of the Record of Appeal, as follows:

“I noted that while the Reliefs sought by the Plaintiff specifically mentioned Primary Election, the entire 27 paragraphs of the supporting affidavit was thoroughly impregnated with non-holding of ad-hoc three-man delegate for Ohafia South State Constituency Abia State House of Assembly adopting a double-barreled approach. The take-off point of Federal High Court’s jurisdiction starts from primary election conducted and nothing to do with ad-hoc three-man election which is the subject matter of the instant suit. Sections 29(5) and 84 (14) Electoral Act, 2022 talks about party primaries only and it is only when there is non-compliance with the Guidelines for Primary Election that the law provides for redress in Court. Anything outside the primary election is entirely the internal affairs of the party. See Agi v PDP (2017) 17 NWLR Part 1695, Ufomba v INEC (2017) LPELR 42079 SC”.

I agree with the lower Court that the Appellant’s Affidavit in support of his Originating Summons is replete with the failure of the 1st Respondent to hold the 3-man delegate election which, he alleged, would have birthed a valid primaries election. The Courts have, however, held severally that the selection or nomination of candidates by a political party is clearly within the domain of that party and outside the jurisdiction of the Court.

In Uba Vs Ozigbo (2022) 10 NWLR Part 1839 Page 431 at 458 Para G, it was held, per Okoro JSC, reading the leading judgment, that:

“It is not the business of any Court to select or nominate candidates for any political party for election. The nomination of a candidate to contest an election is the sole responsibility of the political party concerned. The Courts do not have jurisdiction to decide who shall be sponsored by a political party as a candidate in an election”.

The question of justiciability of the internal affairs of a political party also came up in Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR Part 1595 Page 386, where it was held, per Rhodes-Vivour JSC at Page 459 – 460 PARA G – B, as follows:

“Members of a party would do well to understand and appreciate the finality of a party’s decision over its domestic or internal affairs.

At page 475 of the same judgment, Agi v PDP, Supra, the Court, per Sanusi JSC at Paragraph A-B held:

“…the first leg of the Appellant’s ground relates to nomination of a candidate by a political party. The provisions of law still remain valid and subsisting that the issue of nomination and/or sponsorship of a candidate by a political party to contest an election on its behalf or platform, is purely within the domain or precinct of such political party and Court lacks jurisdiction to nominate or partake in the process of nomination of a candidate for any political party to represent or contest election on its behalf”.

See also Anyanwu v. Ogunewe (2014) 8 NWLR Part 1410 Page 437 where it was held, per Kekere-Ekun JSC at Pages 470-471 Para H-A, that;

“the question as to who is a candidate of a political party for any election, is a political question within the domestic jurisdiction of political parties and consequently not justiciable”.

The question of whether ward congresses were conducted according to the Party’s Guidelines or at all, before the “election” or selection of the 3rd Respondent by the 1st Respondent, can thus not be entertained by the Courts, I hold, but is within the internal affairs of the 1st Respondent. It is accordingly not a live issue for this or the lower Court to determine whether the lower Court considered the evidence before it or whether requisite notices were given for the holding of ward congresses, as these have been rendered academic, the Court having been divested of jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s claim.” Per ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.