Position of the Law on Substitution of Candidate by a Political Party

CASE TITLE: INEC v. PDP & ORS (2022) LPELR-57380(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 14^TH APRIL, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS

LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION: 

This appeal borders on the Substitution of a Political Party’s Candidate.

FACTS: 

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

The 1st Respondent is one of the registered political parties in Nigeria. The 1st Respondent, desirous of participating in the Federal Capital Territory Area Council Elections which took place on 12th February 2022, nominated and sponsored the 3rd Respondent as its Councillorship candidate for the Dobi Ward of Gwagwalada Area Council. It duly submitted the name of the 3rd Respondent to the Appellant as its candidate for the said election.

However, before the conduct of the said election, the 3rd Respondent resigned his membership of the 1st Respondent political party and consequently withdrew his candidature for the said Dobi Ward of the Gwagwalada Area Council. Thereupon, the need arose for the 1st Respondent to substitute the 3rd Respondent; it wrote to the Appellant submitting the name of the 2nd Respondent as its candidate in substitution for the 3rd Respondent who had resigned from the party and withdrawn as 1st Respondent’s candidate. It is the 1st Respondent’s case that upon the submission of the letter of substitution to the Appellant on 21st December 2021, the Appellant’s officers refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter on the ground that the period within which to substitute candidates under the Time Table and Schedule of Activities for 2022 Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Area Councils Election had expired. It is further the 1st Respondent’s case that on 6th January 2022, the Appellant rejected the substitution of the 3rd Respondent on the basis that the last day for withdrawal by candidates and substitution/replacement of withdrawn candidates was on 26th June 2021.

In consequence, the 1st and 2nd Respondents instituted proceedings by Originating Summons filed at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/39/2022. The 1st & 2nd Respondent claimed the following reliefs:

1. A Declaration that the 1st Claimant is eligible to substitute/replace 2nd Defendant – Sadiq Gomna Ibrahim with the 2nd Claimant – CALEB YAKUBU DANTANI as the 1st Claimant’s Councillorship candidate for the Dobi Ward of Gwagwalada Area Council Federal Capital Territory in the FCT Area Council election scheduled by the 1st Defendant for the 12th February 2022.

2. An Order on the 1st Defendant to forthwith remove the name of 2nd Defendant – Sadiq Gomna Ibrahim as the 1st Claimant’s Councillorship Candidate for the Dobi Ward of Gwagwalada Area Council Federal Capital Territory Area Council election scheduled by the 1st Defendant for 12th February 2022 replace the 2nd Defendant – Sadiq Gomna Ibrahim with CALEB YAKUBU DANTANI as the 1st Claimant’s Councillorship candidate for the Dobi Ward of Gwagwalada Area Council Federal Capital Territory election.

The trial court heard the action on the affidavits and processes filed and exchanged between the Appellant and the 1st and 2nd Respondents. In its judgment which was delivered on 8th February 2022, the trial court answered the question for determination in the affirmative and then granted the reliefs claimed.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court and appealed against the same in the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal based on the following issues for determination:

1. Whether in view of the fact deposed at paragraph 8[iii] – [viii] of the further affidavit in support of the Originating Summons of the 1st and 2nd Respondents vis – a – vis the finding of the trial Court thereon, the case of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is not statute barred. 

2. Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the contradictory affidavit evidence placed before it by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to come to the conclusion that Exhibit 3 was submitted to the 1st defendant on 21/12/2021. 

3. Whether the learned trial Court was right when in one breath held that Exhibit A has the force of law and in another breath held that Exhibit A contradicts the provision of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) despite the judicial authorities the Court was referred to.

DECISION/HELD: 

In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The decision of the trial Court, Coram Judice: Oriji, J., was accordingly affirmed.

RATIOS:

• ELECTORAL MATTERS – SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATE: Power of political party to substitute/withdraw its candidate for election; whether the time frame for substitution/withdrawal of candidate for election provided by INEC in its election timetable can supersede the time frame provided under the Electoral Act
• ACTION – PLEADINGS: Whether it is the affidavits that constitute the pleadings in an originating summons; how pleadings should be considered
• APPEAL – FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Whether finding(s) of fact(s) of a trial court is/are presumed to be correct; duty of party seeking to upset such findings
• CASE LAW – JUDICIAL PRECEDENT/STARE DECISIS: Whether the Court of Appeal is bound by its previous decisions and the exception(s); an instance where the Court of Appeal will depart from its previous decision