Elumelu v. Okolie: When Tribunal Gave Judgment To A Meddlesome Interloper
By: Stephen Ubimago
On Monday, July 24, the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Asaba, Delta State nullified the February 25 electoral victory of Honourable Ngozi Okolie, the Labour Party (LP) House of Representatives candidate for the Aniocha/Oshimili Federal Constituency. And in replacement, the Tribunal installed Ndudi Elumelu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Okolie, who won the election by a landslide having polled 53, 879 votes – trouncing Elumelu who polled 33, 466 votes and Tony Nwaka of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to the second and third places respectively – was not removed by the Tribunal because his victory was too emphatic to be credible. Neither was he removed because his win had K-leg (a pejorative idiom in pidgin for describing a feat tainted by irregularity or compromise).
In other words, Okolie’s victory was clean, unmarred by rigging, and untarnished by failure on his part to play by the ethical rules or by the rule of law as provided for in the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Electoral Act 2022, or the Guidelines of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Rather, for the three-man panel of judges at the Tribunal led by Justice A.Z. Mussa, it made sense to sack Okolie of LP, by far the most popular candidate at the poll, and replace him with Elumelu of PDP, who came a distant second, merely because it agreed with Elumelu that Okolie was not validly nominated by the Labour Party to run on its platform, and because he was not qualified to contest in the election.
Stated differently, the Tribunal considered it wise to ground its judgment, which found for Elumelu, not on any proven case of electoral fraud or irregularity against the LP candidate notorious enough to deny Elumelu victory, but on the PDP candidate’s meddlesomeness in LP’s internal affairs, as his chief complaint was that Okolie was not validly nominated or sponsored by LP even when the Party has never denied, but had even affirmed, that the emergence of Okolie as its flag-bearer at the said poll was regular and in order.
Granted that in Petition No: EPT/DL/HR/06/2023, Elumelu did complain in paragraphs 14 (ii) and 14 (iii) of same that “The Election was not conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and INEC Guidelines...” and that “The 3rd Respondent (Okolie) did not score the majority of lawful votes cast and was consequently unduly returned; he however quickly abandoned those grounds as he couldn’t possibly prove any claim arising from them.
Seeing he couldn’t at once maintain the above grounds and his prayers that the Tribunal should declare him the winner of the election, Elumelu in his Final Written Address would tactically rather latch onto the ground contained in paragraph 14 (i) to the effect that Okolie was not validly nominated or sponsored by LP and that he wasn’t qualified to contest in the election.
Be that as it may, not only did perusing and evaluating the brilliant arguments canvassed by Okolie in his Final Written Address as settled by his Counsel Chike George Onyemenam SAN leave one thoroughly impressed; but also weighing it against Elumelu’s arguments as settled by his Counsel, Ken Mozia SAN tended to leave one wondering what actually was going on in the minds of the learned trial judges of the Tribunal when they thought it wise to side with the Petitioner.
For one thing, Okolie led compelling evidence and canvassed arguments on point of law to easily vanquish Elumelu’s Petition. He showed that having graduated from the famous St. Patrick’s College, Asaba, he was, pursuant to the extant laws, academically qualified to contest in the election in contradiction of Elumelu’s crummy claim.
Okolie also led evidence to show that prior to his expression of interest to contest in the said election, he duly resigned his appointment as Senior Special Assistant to the immediate past Governor of Delta State, with proofs as well showing that he duly restituted all salaries he received in default of his resignation – all of which were in the Tribunal’s record.
This consequently leaves one with the feeling that either the trial judges of the Tribunal hurriedly delivered the said judgment without evaluating all the evidence before them as particularly led by Okolie, or the Judges felt at liberty to spurn the stare decisis principle according to which the decisions of appellate courts of record are binding on the lower courts.
In other words, the Tribunal found for Elumelu despite the bounteous references to binding judicial pronouncements as settled by Okolie’s counsels which required that where a Petitioner is grounding his Petition on meddlesomeness in the internal affairs of another political party, the petition of the Petitioner, who in this connection is wanting in locus standi, must be dismissed for lacking merit.
In one of the said cases referenced by Okolie, namely Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) V. INEC & Others, wherein the PDP sought to challenge the legality of the nomination process of Alhaji Kashim Shetima as the APC Vice Presidential candidate, the Supreme Court held inter alia that “The application of section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, does not extend to a Political Party poking into the affairs of another.
“The settled position of the Law remains that a Political Party cannot challenge the nomination of the candidate of another political party, and this does not change with the provisions of section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution.”
It was in light of same ratio establishing the non-justiciability of matters relating to the grant of waiver by a party or membership of a political party, and describing same as strictly the internal affairs of a Political Party that the Supreme Court in Enang v. Asuquo & Ors (2023) LPELR-60042 (SC) dismissed the appeal of the Appellant in the said matter.
In Echendu v. Ugonna & Ors (2002) LPELRE-58890 (CA), the Court of Appeal also reiterated the settled principle that questions relating to the membership of a political party is not for the courts to decide as such matters are within the exclusive preserve of the party concerned.
That being said, with the Labour Party moving quickly to appeal against the instant Tribunal judgment, it is hoped that justice will ultimately be served in order to forestall the ill-wind a curious judgment of this kind portends not only for the electoral fortunes of the Labour Party in particular, but also for Nigeria’s democracy in general.
 
Stephen Ubimago, a Lagos-based Legal Practitioner, wrote in from Lagos.

PityObi, I hope you are following.

spearman:
PityObi, I hope you are following.

I hear say mandate theif don enter Benin