Do meddlesome interlopers get different judgments in Nigeria?

I read, with rapt attention, the article scripted by Mr Tonnie Iredia entitled ‘Do meddlesome interlopers get different judgments in Nigeria?’ on May 28, 2023, along with other commentators.

From the contents and contexts of the article, it seems to me that, its title is not rhetorical. To this end, permit me to exercise the liberty of offering a response and or answer to that fundamental question denoted by the title of the article particularly within the context of the reference by the author to two Supreme Court decisions where in one occasion, the court found in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party against the All Progressives Congress and its candidates, but in another circumstance, the same party was described as a meddlesome interloper in the affairs of the same All Progressives Congress.

The first of those decisions is the case initiated by the Peoples Democratic Party against Degi-Eremienyo who, at that material time, was the Deputy Governor-elect of Bayelsa State on the platform of the All Progressives Congress. In that case, the Supreme Court disqualified and or nullified the election of Degi-Eremienyo and by implication, his principal Lyon David essentially on the ground that Degi-Eremienyo presented a forged certificate/false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission pursuant to his nomination as a running mate to David Lyon.

The second case is the ill-fated judicial challenge by the Peoples Democratic Party against Kashim Shettima, Nigeria’s Vice President-elect which sought to nullify his electoral victory and by implication, that of his principal Asiwaju Tinubu on the ground of double nomination among others.

• 2023 Keffi Polo: Malcomines win Gov’s Cup, Comantarus crown
• Lack of access to information bane of research – Don

On the basis of these two decisions given by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, it is our reasoned submission that ‘meddlesome interlopers’ do not get different judgments in Nigeria. In justifying the foregoing position, we take umbrage under the state of the law at the material time that each of these decisions were handed down by their lordships of the apex court.

To start with, at the time that the Bayelsa case reported as PDP v. Degi-Eremienyo (2021) 9NWLR (Pt 1781) was decided, the principal legislation regulating electoral affairs in Nigeria, was the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). Section 31 (5) of that Act, had a rather unique provision.  It stipulated as follows:

“Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or FCT against such a person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.”

From the above, particularly the accentuated phrase ‘any person’, the Electoral Act expressly opened the floodgate for the challenge of the information submitted by any candidate or any document presented by him believed to be false. In other words, Section 31 (5) of that Act conferred locus standi on anyone who had reasonable ground to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by him or her to the Independent National Electoral Commission was false, to institute in any court of competent jurisdiction, an action seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.

It is thus beyond peradventure that in P.D.P. v. Degi-Eremienyo (Supra), the Peoples Democratic Party sought refuge and rightly so, in Section 31 (5) of that Electoral Act in instituting that action against Degi-Eremienyo and the others impleaded therein.

In the extant Electoral Act however, that is, the Electoral Act of 2022, subsection 5 of the previous section 31 which conferred jurisdiction on any person, has been expunged.

The corresponding section under the current Act, is Section 29(5). Under the present regime, the leeway given or locus standi conferred on ‘any person’ to challenge the document or information contained in an affidavit submitted by a candidate, is no longer a part of our laws. In its stead, it is now only an ‘aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party’ that can challenge the information and or certificate submitted by a candidate which such aspirant believes to be false. Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 now provides as follows:

“Any aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party who has to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or FCT against such a person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.”

On the issue of purported double nomination which formed the fulcrum of the case of the Peoples Democratic Party in Shettima’s case, it was provided for under Section 32 of the 2010 Electoral Act.

In the new Act, the equivalent provisions can be found under Section 30 of the Electoral Act, 2022. Instructively, in both Acts, no role is reserved for or locus standi conferred on one political party to challenge the nomination or nomination process of another party.

The concept of locus standi, is at the fore of adjudication. It strikes at the very substratum of the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine a matter. Where as in Shettima’s case, a party is divested of the locus standi to institute or maintain an action, the case must fail. The law in this regard is not just elementary but has in fact been set in stone. Accordingly, derogation therein is legally impermissible.

In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Supreme Court did not in any way vacillate in describing the Peoples Democratic Party in Shettima’s case as meddlesome interloper. 

Edidiong Usungurua Esq is an Abuja-based legal practitioner