CASE TITLE: LIBERATION MOVEMENT v. INEC & ORS LPELR 81136(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 2025
JUSTICES: ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
OKON EFRETI ABANG, J.C.A.
DIVISION: ABUJA
PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS
FACTS:
This appeal borders on the de-registration of a political party by the INEC.
This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court Abuja Judicial Division delivered by Chikere J, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court dated 24/7/2020.
The Appellant as the 2nd Plaintiff together with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents as the 1st, 3rd & 4th Plaintiffs, respectively, at the trial Court commenced this suit vide Originating Summons dated and filed on 10/2/20. The Appellant, together with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents herein as Plaintiffs in the action, raised 7 questions for determination and sought nine (9) reliefs. The Appellant and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents were aggrieved that the 1st Respondent deregistered them as political parties on 6/2/20 and therefore sought before the trial Court determination of 7 questions which inter alia include whether, by a holistic interpretation of the provisions of Sections 40, 221, and 225A of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the 1st Respondent has the power to deregister a political party when such party has not conclusively participated in the 2019 General Elections and Local Government Elections in all the 774 Local Government Areas.
The Appellant and 2nd, 3rd & 4th Respondents therefore sought before the trial Court 7 reliefs which inter alia include a declaration that the action taken by the 1st Respondent in deregistering the Appellant and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents as political parties on the 6/2/20 when the 2019 General Elections had not been concluded, the elections in Edo, Ondo and Anambra States having not been held, amounts to a violation of the rights of the Appellant, 2nd to 4th Respondents to exist as political parties and therefore ultra vires the powers of the 1st Respondent. The Originating Summons was supported by a 21-paragraph affidavit and several exhibits.
The 1st Respondent in reaction to the suit, filed a 13-paragraph counter-affidavit and accompanied same with a written address where it was contended that the Appellant and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents having participated and contested for the various offices and without being subjected to any disadvantage, failed to win at least 25% of the votes cast in one state of the federation in either the 2019 presidential election, the governorship elections, or one seat in the National or State Houses of Assembly election in the said 2019 general elections. The 1st Respondent also contended that it did not act ultra vires its statutory powers but lawfully acted in deregistering the Appellant the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents who woefully failed to meet the statutory threshold requirements in the 2019 General Elections.
The trial Court after hearing parties in a judgment dismissed the Appellant, 2nd to 4th Respondents’ suit.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the trial Court’s decision in dismissing the suit, and appealed against same.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The appellant formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal, thus:
Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the Appellant failed to prove its case to entitle it to the reliefs sought.
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
Learned Counsel representing the Appellant made reference to the provisions of Section 225A (b-c) 221 of the 1999 Constitution as amended and submitted that the primary duty of a political party is to canvass votes for its candidates and not an unshifting obligation to win elections. Learned Counsel further stated the words of Section 225(A)(b) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, are clear. That for the 1st Respondent to exercise its powers under the said provisions, it must clearly state the reason for deregistering the Appellant or any political party. Learned Counsel submitted with great force that the 1st Respondent is enjoined to provide reason before it deregisters a political party, and the reason, according to the Appellant must be in compliance with the provisions of Section 225(A)(b) and (c) of the Constitution otherwise such deregistration is invalid and null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The Court must step in to stop the illegality and the unconstitutionality. That Section 225A(b) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, provides a procedure to be adopted before the 1st Respondent can de-register a political party. That is where a statute provides a procedure for doing a thing, that procedure alone must be followed.
Learned Counsel relied on the following cases:
I. CO-OPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK (NIG) PLC V A.G. OF ANAMBRA STATE & ANOR (1992) 8 NWLR (PT. 261) P. 528 AT 556.
II. AMAECHI V INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (PT. 1080) 227 AT 318.
The Appellant further contended that the purported reason for the deregistration is only known to the 1st Respondent. That the Appellant cannot and could not be in a position to know the reason for its deregistration having not been so informed. That where the 1st Respondent failed to show the reason for the deregistration, that the trial Court cannot hold that the Appellant failed to prove its case.
It was submitted that the decision or the findings of the trial Court that the Appellant has not proved its case are untenable in law. Learned Appellant’s Counsel then urged the Court to resolve its lone issue in favour of the Appellant and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and restore the Appellant’s political party.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIO:
ELECTORAL MATTERS – REGISTRATION/DEREGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES: Power of INEC to deregister a political party
“The crux of this appeal is on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 225A (a)(b)(c) of 1999 Constitution as amended as regard the exercise of the statutory power of the 1st Respondent. It provides: “255A. The Independent National Electoral Commission shall have power to de-register a Political Party for – (a) Breach of any of the requirements for registration; (b) Failure to win at least twenty-five percent of votes cast in: (i) One State of the Federation in a Presidential Elections; or (ii) One Local Governments of the State in a Governorship Election; (c) Failure to win at least – (i) One ward in the Chairmanship Election; (ii) One seat in the National or State House of Assembly Election; or (iii) One seat in the Councillorship Election.” My Lords, I agree entirely with the trial Court that the 1st Respondent has the power to deregister any political party such as the Appellant where the party violates or breaches any of the above grounds enshrined in the Constitution.” Per ABANG, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
