By Nathaniel Ikyur
Locus Standi – Who or at what point, will a person/party have locus to institute an action on a matter arising from the nomination of a party’s candidate for an election?
The above question forms the basis upon which the Supreme Court determined who has right to question the emergence of candidates of political parties. The reason to prode further on this is because there has been an avalanche of insinuations from supporters of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP in Benue state in respect to the case filed before the gubernatorial election tribunal in the state by the defeated governorship candidate of the PDP, Rt. Hon Terhemen Tarzoor. They have therefore embarked on deliberate falsehood with the hope that the tribunal may give it's ruling in favour of their candidate and then continue to rape the state bare. They have even gone out on an early celebrations against the election of Governor Samuel Ortom of the APC on the grounds of his nominations. Some have even gone to the ridiculous level by referring to Ortom as the 'caretaker' governor.
As a journalist, I sought some clarifications from lawyers and was stunned at the few judicial pronouncements from the nation's apex court on who qualifies to question the election of a candidate in an election, in this case Governor Ortom. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has made strong pronouncements in this regard. Take for the example the case between Dr. Umar Ardo v Admiral Murtala Nyako & Ors (2014) LPELR-22878 (SC).
Justice Onnoghen submitted while ruling on the faorementioned case thus:
“It is in that respect that I have to say that it is settled law that the question as to who is a candidate of a political party remains within the province of the political parties over which the courts have no jurisdiction except within the very narrow compass provided under the said S.87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. Under the said S. 87 (9) an aspirant who can invoke the jurisdiction of the court, and, as has been held in a long line of cases from this court, is the one who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral 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 – see Lado v C.P.C. (2012) vs. Izun (2011) 17 NWLR (pt 1275) 30 at 59-60, Emenike vs. P.D.P. (2012) 12 NWLR (pt 1315) 559; P.D.P vs Timipreye Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1316) 85 at 126; Emeka vs. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt 1331) 55 at 83. It follows that for a party/person to qualify or have the locus to institute an action on a matter arising from the nomination of a party’s candidate for an election, he must have participated in the nomination exercise of the party and failed irrespective of whether nomiantion is a process or an event. Where a party did not participate in the primary election of the political party for the nomination of candidate for an election, he cannot sue on the processes leading to and including the actual primary election, because by the provisions of the said section 87 (9) Supra. The court will have no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action. In the instant case, appellant did not participate in the primary election conducted by the parties to select/nominate its candidate for the gubernatorial election in question neither did he fail in the said exercise per Onnoghen JSC (Pp 47– 49, Paras A–F.
P.D.P. vs Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1316) 85 per Rhodes Vivour JSC. He stated at Page 125 thus: “The right to nominate or sponsor a candidate by a political party is a domestic right of the party. A political matter within the sole discretion of the party. A member of the party has no legal right to be nominated/sponsored by his party. A court thus has no jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor. Nomination or sponsorship of a candidate for election is a political matter solely within the discretion of the party and this is so because the sponsorship or nomination of a candidate is a pre-election affair of the party. But where the political party conducts its primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary complains about the conduct of the primaries, the courts have jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of S. 87 (9) of the electoral Act to examine if the conduct of the primary election was conducted in accordance with the parties constitution and guidelines. Earlier in Lado vs CPC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1279) 692, Onnoghen JSC had stated at pages 718–719 that “The power of an aggrieved aspirant who is not satisfied with the conduct of the primaries by his party to elect a candidate must bring himself within the preview of section 87 (b) (ii); and (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) Supra. It is only if he can come within the provisions of those sub-sections that his complaints can be justiceable as the courts cannot still decide as between two or more contending parties which of them is the nominated candidate of a political party. That power still resides in the political parties to exercise per Aka’ahs, JSC (pp.35-38, paras D-F).
The import of the decisions above is to the effect that only an aspirant within a political party who contested the primaries of the party with the hope of emerging as a party candidate who is aggrieved in the outcome of the primaries is imbued with the locus to seek remedy before the court. An aspirant of another political party who was nominated as a candidate of that political party to be on the ballot for a general election does not acquire the right to question the nomination of another candidate for the simple reason that he was defeated in the general elections so he is aggrieved. The requirement is that he must have participated in that other party’s primaries. In this case, Tarzoor must have participated in the primaries of the APC to acquire the requisite locus to question ow Governor Ortom emerged.
If he did not participate as in the case of Tazoor V Ortom before the election petition tribunal then he can not invoke section 138 (01) to his aid. He was not an aspirant for the APC ticket within the contemplation of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. He was a candidate of the PDP and not am aspirant in the APC aggrieved by the outcome of the APC primaries so he can not be held questioning the validity of the nomination process in the APC. That right is reserved for the 5 other candidates viz; Rt Hon Emmanuel Jime, Sen JKN Waku, Hon Mike Iordye, Prof Steven Ugbah, Chief Akange Audu who participated with Ortom at the APC primaries. In this wise, now that Jime and Waku having withdrawn their case against Ortom from the Federal High Court Abuja, Tazoor is an unnecessary interloper and a busy body. This is my take given the Supreme Court verdict on qualifications which is higher than the Court of Appeal. I rest my case
0 comments:
Post a Comment