Whether a Political Party Can Challenge the Primary Election of another Party

CASE TITLE: PDP v. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR-59874(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD MARCH, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS

LEAD JUDGMENT: ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on electoral matters.

FACTS:

This is an Appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1908/2022, delivered on 23rd January, 2023 by Hon. Justice Inyang E. Ekwo.

At the trial Court, the Appellant, as Plaintiff and Political Party, had, by Originating Summons, sought some declarations and orders against the Respondents, to invalidate or nullify the nomination, submission and publication of the name of the 3rd Respondent as a candidate in the 2023 Sokoto State Gubernatorial election. The appellant contended that there was a failure on the part of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to comply with mandatory provisions of the Constitution, the Electoral Act and the 1st Respondent guidelines on the nomination of candidates for the election, in that the 2nd Respondent did not upload 3rd Respondent’s nomination Form EC13B, as prescribed in Paragraphs 2.0 to 2.7 and 7.0 of INEC Guidelines.

The case was heard on the merits, wherein the Appellant led evidence on the claim, that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were non-compliant with INEC guidelines and, by extension, the Electoral Act; that the non-compliance rendered the nomination and purported submission of the 3rd Respondent’s name as the governorship candidate of 2nd Respondent, invalid.

The trial Court found that the appellant failed to prove its case and dismissed its claims.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

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

1. Whether the trial Court was right to dismiss the Appellant’s claim upon holding that the Appellant failed to establish the burden of proof placed on it, that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not upload Form EC13B as stipulated by law.

2. Whether the Appellant even had locus stand; to institute the suit, relying on Section 285 (14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution of the F.R.N, as amended.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• ACTION – LOCUS STANDI: Meaning and nature of locus standi; tests for determining whether a person has locus standi
• APPEAL – UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of failure to appeal against the finding(s) of a Court
• ELECTORAL MATTERS – POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARY: Whether a political party can challenge the primary election of another party

ELECTORAL MATTERS – POLITICAL PARTY: Whether a political party can interfere in the internal affairs of other rival political parties