APC Edo Primary: The Supreme Court clarified

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA.

Between Appellant:

MAHMUD ALIYU SHINKAFI

PEOLPES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)

and

Respondent:

ABDULAZEEZ ABUBAKAR YARI

ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC)

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTIONAL COMMISSION (INEC).

Judgement:

(DELIVERED BY JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC) 17th September, 2015.

Party Primaries:

As culled:

Now under Section 87 of the Act which I had earlier reproduced in this judgment, a political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under the Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions. 

The procedure shall be either by direct or indirect primaries. I had earlier stated in this judgment that the right to nominate or sponsor candidate by a political party is a domestic right of the party. It is a political matter within the exclusive discretion of the party.

See also PDP V. Sylva (2012) LPELR - 7814 (SC) (Consolidated), Hope Uzodinma V. Senator Osita Izunaso (2011) Vol. 5 (Pt.1) MJSC P.27.

Indeed the position has not changed since Onuoha V. Okafor (supra). A court has no jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor in an election.

However, it is now trite that where a political party conducts its primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary election complains about its conduct of the primaries, the courts have jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to examine if the conduct of the primary was in accordance with the party's Constitution and Guidelines. The reason is that in the conduct of its primaries, the courts will never allow a political part to act arbitrarily or as it likes. A political party must obey its Constitution.

Now, Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act provides:

"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 has 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 or the High Court of a State or Federal Capital Territory, for redress".

The above provision which is clear and unambiguous gives only one person the locus standi to challenge the nomination of a person for an election during a primary election. Only an aspirant at the primary election is permitted by Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) to challenge the selection or nomination of a person for an elective office. Apart from an aspirant who took part in the primary election, no other person is authorized to file an action to challenge the selection or nomination of a candidate by a political party for an election.

In Daniel V. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113 at 155,156-157 paragraphs G-S and 158 paragraph G, this court held that:

"By the provision in Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) it is an aggrieved aspirant who physically participated in a primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of his party that is imbued with the locus standi to raise a finger of complaint... The Appellant admitted that he did not participate in the primary. He is not an aspirant in terms of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act. He is not imbued with the locus standi to challenge the said primary."