The sack of all Labour Party Candidates in Abia and Kano States by a Federal High Court sitting in Kano, is on the hot burner.

The Originating Summons was filed by Mr. Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim against the Labour Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It allegedly borders on the failure of the 1st defendant (LP) to submit her membership register to the 2nd defendant (INEC) 30 days prior to the Primaries of the Party.

Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act reads: Each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or Convention.

With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022.

However, I believe this judgement was delivered per incuriam.

Elections have been won and lost not only in Abia State but all over the Country, hence it is only through the elections petition tribunal that reliefs (if any) can be sought as of now.

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the life-blood and existence of any suit. No matter how finely delivered, the suit becomes null and void if the Court has no jurisdiction. Lokpobiri v. Ogola per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was).

The Court does not determine the membership of a Political Party. The Party determines her members.

Mr Haruna, the plaintiff, had deposed his OS on 11th May, 2023 well over one month after the election for a suit whose cause of action was June 2022. It is clearly statute-barred, divesting the court of jurisdiction to have entertained same. He ought to have come under Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN and filed 14 days after the course of action for it to be heard.

It is clear that the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice 2022, Nos 3 & 4 were obviously not judiciously followed by the court.

The question that comes to my mind is:
- does the plaintiff even possess the locus to file this suit?

Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

Was Mr Haruna a candidate of the Labour Party in Abia State? The certain answer is NO. He had no locus, no business with the issues having not participated in the Primaries of the Party in that State.

Again, what comes to my mind is that relevant and interested parties were not joined.

Whilst non-joinder does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of Court, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. (Katami v. Katami 2018) per Oho JCA

The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Again, Can Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act override the Constitutional eligibility requirements of these Candidates in Abia and/or Kano?

Still on the disqualifications issue in APM v. Mr. Peter Obi: The Appeal Court per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA, held that Mr Peter Obi cannot be disqualified by Section 77(3) supra having satisfied the conditions of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 CFRN.

Sections 131 and 137 are direct and copious to Sections 177 and 182 (for Governors).

The plaintiff's apparent lack of locus standi should have deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in his OS.

When the plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The position of the law is to dismiss same (Maxi Okwu & Anor v. INEC & Ors) per Okoro JSC

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.

This should normally not stop the inauguration for NASS Candidates and/or Otti, however, it has to be vacated or appealed as the judgement is valid and subsisting.

It is wholesomely clear that this suit have no scintilla of merit and will not survive the scrutiny of higher Courts.

If you say INEC cannot make rules you cannot complain about INEC not respecting its own rules in other cases.

It Must stand by Fire by Force............. Labourers in Sifia Pains.

Obidients should sell Labour Party and use the Money to Look for Obi Manhood, sorry Mandate.😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣

.

Ok
What is obvious is the desecration of our hallowed courts by political actors who think they are bigger than the system and the system should work for them alone.
Whatever may be the plot to destabilise LP, the courts should be protected from such dirty games
Nigerian judiciary needs to be saved as it's fast losing public legitimacy and respect

A

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the judgement will be upturned. However, until the judgement is set aside by a superior court, it remains valid.

Btw, it’s really funny you’re now hiding under technicalities to defend Labour Party. You can’t even deny the fact that the judgement is sound in law. It is the exact position of the law and nothing else. Good enough, APC also raised the same issue in her cross petition to the tribunal. We will be waiting to see what the tribunal will decide.

Hopefully, when some of the issues raised by Peter Obi are also similarly decided by the technicalities you’ve employed on this thread, we can all keep the same energy and not insult the judiciary.

The date hmmm.

seunmsg:
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the judgement will be upturned. However, until the judgement is set aside by a superior court, it remains valid.

Btw, it’s really funny you’re now hiding under technicalities to defend Labour Party. You can’t even deny the fact that the judgement is sound in law. It is the exact position of the law and nothing else. Good enough, APC also raised the same issue in her cross petition to the tribunal. We will be waiting to see what the tribunal will decide.

Hopefully, when some of the issues raised by Peter Obi are also similarly decided by the technicalities you’ve employed on this thread, we can all keep the same energy and not insult the judiciary.

In law, once there is no jurisdiction it is null and void.

There is a world of difference between jurisdiction and technicality.

The case of Nwajiuba v. Tinubu & Atiku was struck out on jurisdiction. The case of PDP v Shettima met same fate.

Jurisdiction can be raised for the first time even when it is before the Supreme Court. It has happened before (see Ohakim v Rochas Okorocha)

Technicality in law are minute details that seem unfair but forces the Court to make tough calls. An example is Jegede v Akeredolu.

However, jurisdiction is the foundation, the bedrock of which any case rests on.

Labour party should ignore it at their own peril, they are playing to the gallow

fergie001:

In law, once there is no jurisdiction it is null and void.

There is a world of difference between jurisdiction and technicality.

The case of Nwajiuba v. Tinubu & Atiku was struck out on jurisdiction. The case of PDP v Shettima met same fate.

Jurisdiction can be raised for the first time even when it is before the Supreme Court. It has happened before (see Ohakim v Rochas Okorocha)

Technicality in law are minute details that seem unfair but forces the Court to make tough calls. An example is Jegede v Akeredolu.

However, jurisdiction is the foundation, the bedrock of which any case rests on.

What jurisdiction, LP did not field a legitimate presidential candidate, he was not on the register of members, a month prior to the primaries, so he could not have been sponsored by the party, if you like, quote all the case laws.

A nullity ab initio never existed, has no jurisdiction, Labor, pikin Mumu party, they done go enter 1 chance.

seunmsg:
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the judgement will be upturned. However, until the judgement is set aside by a superior court, it remains valid.

Btw, it’s really funny you’re now hiding under technicalities to defend Labour Party. You can’t even deny the fact that the judgement is sound in law. It is the exact position of the law and nothing else. Good enough, APC also raised the same issue in her cross petition to the tribunal. We will be waiting to see what the tribunal will decide.

Hopefully, when some of the issues raised by Peter Obi are also similarly decided by the technicalities you’ve employed on this thread, we can all keep the same energy and not insult the judiciary.

The judgment is not sound in anyway or manner.

It’s as watery as a watery poo.

And there’s no comparison between the case and Obi’s case against Tinubu. Don’t compare them.

At least you should sound more reasonable after reading what Fergie wrote up there. Abi you no read am?

favor914:
What jurisdiction, LP did not field a legitimate presidential candidate, he was not on the register of members, a month prior to the primaries, so he could not have been sponsored by the party, if you like, quote all the case laws.

A nullity ab initio never existed, has no jurisdiction.

Go and read what jurisdiction is.
No matter the case or suit, once there is no jurisdiction, it amounts to nothing.

You must have the locus before the Court can assume jurisdiction. In the case of PDP v. Shettima, aren't you aware of the allegations of Shettima's double nomination?

For the PDP not to have the locus, did the Court look into the merits of the matter? That's jurisdiction!

favor914:
What jurisdiction, LP did not field a legitimate presidential candidate, he was not on the register of members, a month prior to the primaries, so he could not have been sponsored by the party, if you like, quote all the case laws.

A nullity ab initio never existed, has no jurisdiction.

You should be limiting how you talk about some certain things to avoid people thinking of you in a way they are not supposed to think of you.

Do you know that political parties have what is called waiver? With waiver, I can defect to a party this night and become their candidate by morning and no court of law can question that.

Section 77 of the Electoral Act said that a political party must submit its register not later than 30 days before their primaries but did it also say that whoever his/her name is not found on the register cannot be sponsored by the party? Huh?

Remove IPOB and Obidient for a better nigeria

fergie001:

Go and read what jurisdiction is.
No matter the case or suit, once there is no jurisdiction, it amounts to nothing.

You must have the locus before the Court can assume jurisdiction. In the case of PDP v. Shettima, aren't you aware of the allegations of Shettima's double nomination?

For the PDP not to have the locus, did the Court look into the merits of the matter? That's jurisdiction!

You don’t comply with the law, then you want to use jurisdiction for an excuse?

Was Otti or Obi members of the party up to a month, before the primaries was held?

There nomination is null & void ab initio, it never existed, whether jurisdiction exists or not.

The certified true copy of the members register tendered to the tribunal is the whole case, not too much talk.

Penguin2:


You should be limiting how you talk about some certain things to avoid people thinking of you in a way they are not supposed to think of you.

Do you know that political parties have what is called waiver? With waiver, I can defect to a party this night and become their candidate by morning and no court of law can question that.

Section 77 of the Electoral Act said that a political party must submit its register not later than 30 days before their primaries but did it also say that whoever his/her name is not found on the register cannot be sponsored by the party? Huh?

The Supreme Court in February in Ita Enang v. Asuquo made it clear: that it is within the prerogative of any Party to issue waivers to new entrants.

The SC stated that it is within the internal affairs of a Political Party and the Court has no business to meddle into it. So Justice Yunusa had no business whatsoever to say a word on this case.

favor914:
You don’t comply with the law, then you want to use jurisdiction for an excuse?

Was Otti or Obi members of the party up to a month, before the primaries was held?

There nomination is null & void ab initio, it never existed, whether jurisdiction exists or not.

The certified true copy of the members register tendered to the tribunal is the whole case, not too much talk.

I WILL TAG YOU WHEN THEY RULE ON THAT SUBJECT MATTER.

fergie001:

The Supreme Court in February in Ita Enang v. Asuquo made it clear: that it is within the prerogative of any Party to issue waivers to new entrants.

The SC stated that it is within the internal affairs of a Political Party and the Court has no business to meddle into it. So Justice Yunusa had no business whatsoever to say a word on this case.

Of course they can choose who ever they want to give a waiver, but you must have been a member of the parry for at least 30 days according to the electoral act, before nomination.

We agree that Nigeria is a Zoo, but not abuse of Solomon Grundy Peter Obi politics, join party on Thursday, presidential candidate on Tuesday?

Desperate Desperado Peter Obi is a gunner.

favor914:
Of course they can choose who ever they want to give a waiver, but you must have been a member of the parry for at least 30 days according to the electoral act, before nomination, not abuse of Solomon Grundy Peter Obi politics, join party on Thursday, presidential candidate on Tuesday?

Desperate Desperado Peter Obi is a gunner.

Asuquo joined the APC 2 days before the Akwa Ibom APC Primary. Infact, he had bought the nomination form of the PDP and was successfully screened.

How can you react to this?

fergie001:
Asuquo joined the APC 2 days before the Akwa Ibom APC Primary.

How can you react to this?

Did he win the Governorship, wasn’t he dragged to court by disgruntled APC members? So because Akpabio did nonsense also in Akwa Ibom we must accept it?

favor914:
Did he win the Governorship, wasn’t he dragged to court by disgruntled APC members? So because Akpabio did nonsense also in Akwa Ibom we must accept it?

He was dragged to the Supreme Court and he won.

The Supreme Court said it is the Party who decides their members. Even if he joined a night before, as long as he had the waiver, the Court has no business with it.

Akpabio is not Supreme Court, let's not digress away from the subject matter.

Haruna Ibrahim had no locus.

fergie001:

The Supreme Court in February in Ita Enang v. Asuquo made it clear: that it is within the prerogative of any Party to issue waivers to new entrants.

The SC stated that it is within the internal affairs of a Political Party and the Court has no business to meddle into it. So Justice Yunusa had no business whatsoever to say a word on this case.

Allow that egbon to continue defending nonsense.

This only exposes the reason they make the kind of choices they make.

They are so shallow, unintelligent and uninformed.

fergie001:
The sack of all Labour Party Candidates in Abia and Kano States by a Federal High Court sitting in Kano, is on the hot burner.

This was precipitated by a suit filed by Mr. Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim against the Labour Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. It allegedly borders on the failure of the 1st defendant (LP) to submit her membership register to the 2nd defendant (INEC) 30 days prior to the Primaries of the Party.

Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act reads: Each political party shall make such register available to the Commission not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or Convention.

With Otti as a case study, the Abia Gov-Elect resigned from the APC on May 28 and won the Party Primary conducted on June 09, 2022.

However, I believe this judgement was delivered per incuriam.

Elections have been won and lost not only in Abia State but all over the Country, hence it is only through the elections petition tribunal that reliefs (if any) can be sought as of now.

It is trite law that jurisdiction is the life-blood and existence of any suit. No matter how finely delivered, the suit becomes null and void if the Court has no jurisdiction. Lokpobiri v. Ogola per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was).

The Court does not determine the membership of a Political Party. The Party determines her members.

Mr Haruna, the plaintiff, had deposed his OS on 11th May, 2023 well over one month after the election for a suit whose cause of action was June 2022. It is clearly statute-barred, divesting the court of jurisdiction to have entertained same. He ought to have come under Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN and filed 14 days after the course of action for it to be heard.

It is clear that the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice 2022, Nos 3 & 4 were obviously not judiciously followed by the court.

The question that comes to my mind is:
- does the plaintiff even possess the locus to file this suit?

Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.

Was Mr Haruna a candidate of the Labour Party in Abia State? The certain answer is NO. He had no locus, no business with the issues having not participated in the Primaries of the Party in that State.

Again, what comes to my mind is that relevant and interested parties were not joined.

Read the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Oluchi Anyanwoko v. Chief Mrs Christy Okoye:

A judgement made with an order against a person who was not a Party to a pending suit even by default is of no avail. It cannot be allowed to stand per Tabai JSC

Whilst non-joinder does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of Court, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. (Katami v. Katami 2018) per Oho JCA

The proper thing was for the Judge to have allowed a window for necessary parties to be properly joined thereof, at worse.

The plaintiff did not bring himself to show cause why he should be taken seriously neither had he shown the injury he will suffer in Abia State if his suit isn't adjudicated upon.

Again, Can Section 77(3) of the Electoral Act override the Constitutional eligibility requirements of these Candidates in Abia and/or Kano?

Still on the disqualifications issue in APM v. Mr. Peter Obi: The Appeal Court per Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu JCA, held that Mr Peter Obi cannot be disqualified by Section 77(3) supra having satisfied the conditions of Sections 131 and 137 of the 1999 CFRN.

Sections 131 and 137 are direct and copious to Sections 177 and 182 (for Governors).

The plaintiff's apparent lack of locus standi should have deprived the trial court of the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff in his OS.

When the plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The position of the law is to dismiss same (Maxi Okwu & Anor v. INEC & Ors) per Okoro JSC

Interestingly, Justice M N Yunusa contradicted himself when he held that:

"... the candidates that participated in the Abia election are not parties before the court, he lacks the jurisdiction to make an order on the issuance of certificate of return."

Then again

“....That the failure of the 1st Defendant (Labour Party) to submit its register of members in Kano state and Abia state is in crass breach of the provisions of section 77(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the purported primary elections of the 1st defendant is invalid, null and void and of no effect,”

Whilst Justice Yunusa invalidated the Primaries that produced Otti, he had neither restrained nor asked INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the Gov-Elect/NASS Candidates. In lay terms, he made no consequential orders.

This should normally not stop the inauguration for NASS Candidates and/or Otti, however, it has to be vacated or appealed as the judgement is valid and subsisting.

It is wholesomely clear that this suit have no scintilla of merit and will not survive the scrutiny of higher Courts.

Guy,this is uncalled for na.you have never done this,gone so desperate and haywire.this is penguinesque except that you can't keep emotions in check.
While the judgment will be overturned,we dont know if the petitioner was an aspirant.moreover,it looks like a pre primary case and may not require one being an aspirant to be wired with locus

Penguin2:


You should be limiting how you talk about some certain things to avoid people thinking of you in a way they are not supposed to think of you.

Do you know that political parties have what is called waiver? With waiver, I can defect to a party this night and become their candidate by morning and no court of law can question that.

Section 77 of the Electoral Act said that a political party must submit its register not later than 30 days before their primaries but did it also say that whoever his/her name is not found on the register cannot be sponsored by the party? Huh?

Section 77 says submit register 30 days before fixed primaries.it is not talking about members in the register but a simple rule,follow it and avoid sanctions.in any case,this judgment is a moral lesson.technicalities is a double edged sword,it can swing to apc today,lp tomorrow and pdp next.so stop complaining when it favours apc

garfield1:
Guy,this is uncalled for na.you have never done this,gone so desperate and haywire.this is penguinesque except that you can't keep emotions in check.
While the judgment will be overturned,we dont know if the petitioner was an aspirant.moreover,it looks like a pre primary case and may not require one being an aspirant to be wired with locus

You don't know if the plaintiff, Haruna Ibrahim, was an aspirant in Abia State? is that what you are saying?

The purpose of this section on Nairaland is for enlightenment and sometimes information, not for bragging rights...

When the PEPT starts their own, we will also open so that we all can participate, that is what brought some of us this far. Some of your topics we call useless helped us... Let's stay on topic!

fergie001:

You don't know if the plaintiff, Haruna Ibrahim, was an aspirant in Abia State? is that what you are saying?

The purpose of this section on Nairaland is for enlightenment and sometimes information, not for bragging rights...let's stay on topic.

No one is bragging here.you dont normally do this,you only post news that hit FP and not informative or personal posts.haruna may be an aspirant in kano who wants lp candidates nationally to be disq

garfield1:


No one is bragging here.you dont normally do this,you only post news that hit FP and not informative or personal posts.haruna may be an aspirant in kano who wants lp candidates nationally to be disq

The section is for information.
I used Otti and Abia as a case study. The purpose of this is made especially that it will come up at the PEPT wrt the cross-appeal by the APC.

Haruna is not an aspirant in Abia LP. That is the subject!

fergie001:
The section is for information.
I used Otti and Abia as a case study. The purpose of this is made especially that it will come up at the PEPT wrt the cross-appeal by the APC.

Haruna is not an aspirant in Abia LP. That is the subject!

This abia case is a simple case.whether lp violated the law or not,otti must rule abia in my subjective opinion.
I am more interested in the Enugu case as nysc has disowned mbah cert

garfield1:


No one is bragging here.you dont normally do this,you only post news that hit FP and not informative or personal posts.haruna may be an aspirant in kano who wants lp candidates nationally to be disq

Don't shame Fergie into silence. We enjoy the analysis favorable or not. You can contribute or read and pass.

garfield1:


This abia case is a simple case.whether lp violated the law or not,otti must rule abia in my subjective opinion.

I am more interested in the Enugu case as nysc has disowned mbah cert

When we get to that bridge, we will cross it.

fergie001:
When we get to that bridge, we will cross it.

We are already there.the nysc dg has made a sweeping statement yesterday