By: Valentine Adese (JP),
Before the National/State Houses of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Jos, Plateau State adjourned for Judgment, the Petitioners in Petition No: EPT/PL/HR/08/2023, Rt. Hon. Ibrahim Baba Hassan and his political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), have told the Tribunal that, the issue in contention in the Petition is not on the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Constitution or its internal affair as a political party, but rather, a breach of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN).
This was stated in their response to the Preliminary Objections raised by the Respondents on the First Ground of the Petitioners Petition.
The Petitioners also added that, the argument canvassed by the 2nd Respondent, Hon. Musa Agah Avia is porous and does not hold water in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court delivered on 17th March 2023.
“We submit that, the complaint against the 3rd Respondent is not the internal affair of a political party rather, on breach of constitutional provision. Thus, the complaint is rooted on s.65 (2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN)1999, (as amended) and Section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022”. The Petitioners stated.
In its summary of evidence tendered before the Tribunal, the Petitioners further stated that the 3rd Respondent (PDP) did not conduct Ward, Local Government and Zonal Congresses before the State Congress.
Rt. Hon. Baba Hassan and the APC also submitted that, “Even the said congress only 12 Local Government participated according to the document. And the document is incoherent with missing pages, thereby not admissible”
READ THE ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSIONS OF RT. HON. IBRAHIM BABA HASSAN/APC IN PART ON THE ISSUE BELOW:-
“2.01 On this issue, derived from Ground One of the petition. The 2nd and 3rd Respondent raised a Preliminary Objection that the issue of nomination/sponsorship of a Candidate to contest election by political party is squarely within the internal affairs of a political party and relied on the case of Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (PT. 843) 310 at 335 PARAS E-F and the case of P.D.P v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (pt. 1316) 85 at 125-126 PARAS B-D, Falake v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (pt. 1543)61 at 134-135 and Suleiman v. APC (2023) 5 NWLR (pt.18177)211 at 284 PARAS A-F. Ndukwe v. AYU (2023) 5 NWLR (pt.1877) 309 at 343 PARAS B-E The decisions in the just listed cases are apposite and misconceived by learned Counsel to the 2nd Respondent. The issue in contention here is not on party constitution or internal affair of a political party rather a breach of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Therefore the argument canvassed by the 2nd Respondent and relying on such authorities listed above is porous and does not hold water in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court delivered on 17th March 2023 in a matter between ENGR. NELSON OSELOKA ONUBOGU v. IFEYINWA ANAZONWU & 2 OTHERS (2023) LPELR-60288 (SC) Where Hon. Justice Adamu Jauro JSC in a lead Judgment states that:
“Although membership of a political party is within the domestic affairs of the party and is ordinarily not justiciable, where however the complaint borders on non-qualification on account of breach of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Electoral Act, Party Guidelines it can be accomodated………..It is settled that in the process of selection/nomination of their candidates, political parties must comply with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act and other statutes, as well as their own Constitution and Guidelines”.
“2.02See also ALGBAOSO v. INEC & OTHERS (2023) LPELR-5970 2(SC); AKPATASON v. ADJOTO & ORHERS (2019) LPELR-48119(SC)
“We submit that the complaint against the 3rd Respondent is not internal affair of a political party rather on breach of constitutional provision. Thus, the complaint is rooted on s.65 (2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN)1999, (as amended) and section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022.
Section 65(2)(b) of CFRN 1999 (as amended) states:
“A person shall be qualified for election under subsection (1) of this section if:
- He has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent; and
- He is a member of a political party and sponsored by that political party.’’(Emphasis mine)
“2.03 The 2nd Respondent also proceeded to assert that this petition is a Pre-Election matter and he relied on the case of CPC v. UMAR (2012) 12 NWLR (pt. 1315)605 at 624 PARAS C-E. The recent decision of Supreme Court on this issue is in SAROR V PDP (2022) 11 NWLR (PT.1842) 591 Where the Supreme Court held that that the said GROUND of petition as stated in the petitioners petition is not a pre-election matter as to deny the Tribunal of its jurisdiction thereon, and/or the petitioners of their locus standi thereon.
“2.04Thirdly the 2nd Respondent alleged that this first ground of the petitioners petition is Statute Barred. The Respondents predicated their position on section 285 (9) of the Constitution, 1999 (as amended). This position of the Respondents is misconceived, in the sense that, any issue that has to do with the breach of the Constitution of Nigeria cannot be statute- barred and same can be brought by anybody. This is the position of the Supreme Court in CENTER FOR OIL POLLUTION WATCH V NNPC (2018) LPELR- 50830 (sc); (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt.1666) 518.The case of Garba v. APC (20200 2 NWLR (pt. 1708) 345 at 360 PARAS D-H; Umerieh v. APGA (2020) 4 NWLR (pt. 1713) 1 at 10, 11 PARAS G-B and Saraki v. APC (2020) 1 NWLR (pt. 1706)515 at 53 , PARAS E-H relied by the 2nd Respondent are apposite and totally different with the issue at hand which is wholly on breach of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria not on pre-election matter which is time bound by the Constitution. The law does not prescribe 14 days for the challenge to the action of anybody who breaches the CFRN. Therefore, the action of the Petitioners in this petition is not statute-barred.
“2.05. The contention of the Respondents that the Petitioners lack locus Standi to challenge the sponsorship of the 2nd Respondent which is based on the breach of sections 65 (2)(b) of CFRN is misconceived. It is the law as handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of FAWEHINMI V.AKILU&ANOR (INRE: ODUNEYE,DPP)(1987) 12sc 136;(1987) 18 NSCC (pt. 2) 1269; (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 797, that every Nigerian has a duty to ensure that, the law breakers are sanctioned for their illegalities and therefore has locus standi to prevent the violation of public law, the CFRN in this petition. The petitioners have locus standi to bring this action.
“2.06The summary of the Petitioners response to the Objections raised by the Respondents on the 1st Ground of the petitioners petition is that this Hon. tribunal has jurisdiction to entertained this petition because the 2nd, 4th and 6th Respondents were not qualified at the time of the general election held on 25th February, 2023 for Bassa/Jos-North Federal Constituency as stipulated under section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which states:
“134 (1) An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds, that is to say-
- That person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election.’
“2.07. Finally My Lords on the objection against the 1st Ground of the Petition, in SAROR V PDP (2022) 11 NWLR (PT.1842) 591 @, this Honourable Tribunal has been held to have jurisdiction to determining matters relating to the GROUND of non-qualification of candidates as at the date of election and to make appropriate orders thereon, which is in consistent with the provision of Section 134(1) of Electoral Act, 2022”.
SUMMARY OF FACTS FROM EVIDENCE
4.01. In summary, the Petitioners pursuant to paragraph 46 (4) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act, 2022 has tendered long list of documentary evidence and were admitted in evidence before this Hon. Tribunal.
“And such documents were alleged to have been dumped by the 2nd Respondent Counsel and relied in the decision of INEC v. Abubakar (2009) 8 NWLR (pt. 1143) 259 @ 294 PARAS E-G and Makinde v. Adekola (2022) NWLR (pt.1834) 13 at 45-46 PARAS G-C.
“These decisions operated under old regime of the Electoral Act. To cure this issue of an allegation of dumpiness of documents new Electoral Act came with novel provision of paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act, 2022 where it provides “Documentary evidence shall be put in and may be read or taken as read by consent, such documentary evidence shall be deemed demonstrated in open court and the parties in the petition shall be entitled to address and urge argument on the content of the documents and the Tribunal or Court shall scrutinize or investigate the content of the documents as part of the process of ascribing probative value to the documents or otherwise” The only instance where the Petitioner may required to lead an oral evidence on a document is when the allegation requires mathematical calculation not like in the instant case where the whole case of the petitioners against the Respondent is squarely on “Qualification”.
“So, the recent case of Adeleke Ademola Jackson Nurudeen v. Adeboyege Isiaka Oyetola (Unreported) Appeal No. CA/AK/EPT/GOV/01/2023 brought by the 2nd Respondent is actually speaking against his notion on operating under old regime of electoral Act on all manner of documentary evidence.
“In that case, Muhammad L. Shuaibu, JCA at pages 41-42 as quoted by the 2nd Respondent (credit given to him). “In Andrew v. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (pt. 1625) 205 @ 558, the Supreme Court inter alia held that document tendered must be subjected to the test of veracity and credibility. Where it involves mathematical calculations how the figures were arrived at must be demonstrated in open Court”. Therefore all Exhibits tendered by the Petitioners across the Bar deserved to be given probative value in line with the extant new electoral law regime.
“By Exhibit P2 (the decision in suit number PLD/J/304/2020 Between Bitrus Kaze & 11 Others v. People Democratic Party & 24) the Petitioners have proved by evidence before this Hon. Tribunal that the 3rd Respondent had been decreed by the Order of Plateau State High Court to Conduct Fresh Congresses across the Plateau State, from Ward to State and Zonal level.
“4.02 Such Order of the Court in Exhibit P2 was not comply by the 3rd Respondent and attempted to participate in an election. The election body denied them the opportunity. Then the 3rd Respondent instituted an action against the Electoral body on the matter. The Plateau State High Court in Exhibit P3 (a decision with suit number PLD/J/304/2020 Between Peoples Democratic Party v. Plateau State Independence Electoral Commission) affirmed that the 3rd Respondent cannot nominate/sponsored a candidate without conducting fresh congress. This matter lingered up to the Supreme Court in Sc no. SC/CV/1341/2022, marked herein as Exhibit P6where the Supreme Court sometime in the month March, 2023 dismissed the 3rd Respondent appeal. And at the time when the Supreme Court dismissed the 3rd Respondent appeal on the right to Sponsor/nominate Candidates in Plateau State the nomination of Candidates for 2023 General Elections had already took place since sometime in the year 2022. Though by Exhibit 2R1 and 2R2 the 2nd Respondent made a U-turn and start claiming that a 3rd Respondent had conducted another congress on 25th September 2021. One would wonder if they have actually complied with the Court Order of conducting fresh congress since on 25th September 2021 why would they pursued their case on sponsorship/nomination at Supreme Court up to March 2023 when the matter finally dismissed by the apex court? From Exhibit 2R1 and 2R2 its glaring that the purported congress conducted by the 3rd Respondent is STATE CONGRESS not WARD CONGRESS or LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONGRESS as decreed by the Plateau State High Court in Exhibit P2. Members of National Assembly emerged from Ward Congresses not State Congress. Even the 2nd Respondent himself admitted at paragraph 4.18 of its Final Written Address that on 25th September, 2021, the 3rd Respondent conducted only State Congress. And even the said congress only 12 Local Government participated according to the document. And the document is incoherent with missing pages, thereby not admissible”.
No comments:
Post a Comment