Generally the Courts have held that nomination of candidates for an election is within the exclusive domestic jurisdiction of the political parties to the exclusion of the Courts of law.
It was in line with this that the Courts have held that the question of the candidate a political party will sponsor in an election is in the nature of a political question which is not justiceable in a Court of law.
One basic rationale behind this principle of law is that since persons have freely given their consent to be bound by the rules and regulations of a political party, they should be left alone to be governed by such rules and regulations. Once persons have freely mortgaged their consciences to a situation, courts of law should not interfere.
Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court on December 16, in a unanimous decision threw out an appeal filed by the Senator Yakubu Garba Lado fraction of the CPC against the Alhaji Aminu Bello Masari faction.
Trouble started when the two factions conducted parallel primaries to nominate candidate for the 2011 election in Katsina State. The first primaries which produced the Masari group and was authenticated by the CPC National Headquarters took place 13 January while the other took place 15 January which produced the Lado group.
Thus there were two primaries and the contending factions claimed their right to represent the CPC not from a single primary conducted by CPC but from parallel primaries.
By 31 January 2011, the CPC national secretariat had submitted a list, containing names of the Masari group to the INEC as their authenticated candidate.
On 3rd February, the Lado group dragged the Masari group before Justice Abdul Kafarati sitting at the Federal High Court, Abuja and won the case. Armed with this judgment, the INEC was ordered to recognize the Lado group rather than the Masari group.
Dissatisfied, Masari group’s appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja and it was allowed. The Lado group now appealed to the Supreme Court, where their appeal was dismissed 15th December, 2011 and asked to go back to their party since it was an internal affair of the CPC.
In 2006, following the enactment of the electoral Act, 2006 particularly section 34, the absolute powers of political parties in relation to nomination of their candidates for elections was tampered with by the legislature only to the extent and in relation to change /substitution of a nominated candidates whose names and particulars had been forwarded by the party to the INEC 120 days to an election.
The said Section 34 required a political party intending to change/substitute any of its candidates for any election to inform INEC of such a change in writing not later than 60 days to the election and must give cogent and verifiable reasons for the intended change/substitution, except in the case of the death of the candidate to be changed or substituted.
The above provision was designed to bring sanity to an otherwise chaotic situation hitherto existing in the electoral system whereby the political parties could arbitrarily change candidates even on the eve of an election. It is however, very important to emphasize the point that Section 34 of the Electoral Act 2006 did not interfere with nor did it alter or modify the principle that the question as to who is a candidate of a political party for any election Is a political question within the domestic jurisdiction of the political parties and consequently not justiceable. What Section 34 did was to restrict the power of the political parties to change or substitute their candidates at will and at any time.
However, the present Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) does not contain any provision for substitution or change of a nominated candidate once the nomination is made. In the present Electoral Act, Section 87 deals with the processes leading to the nomination of a candidate by a political party for any election and provided in subsection 4(b) (ii) and (c) (ii) that the aspirant who emerges at the primaries with the highest number of votes “shall be declared the winner of the primaries of the party and the aspirant’s name shall be forwarded to the INEC as the candidate of the party”, whether the nomination relates to the office of Governorship of a state, Senatorial or House of Representatives, or State House of Assembly seats, respectively.
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 (4) (b) (ii); (c) (ii) and (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). It is only if he can come within the provisions of these sections that his complaints can be justiceable as to 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. The enactment was not designed to encourage factions emerging from the political parties with each electing its candidates but claiming same to be candidates of the political party concerned.
Meanwhile, John Olusola Baiyeshea SAN lawyer to the Masari group has written to the INEC chairman demanding for the outstanding certificates of return for the duly nominated and sponsored candidates of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) in respect of the 2011 National Assembly election in the affected senatorial districts and federal constituencies of Katsina State won by of the CPC.According to the lawyer, who represents the CPC, the Supreme Court decision of last Friday which dismissed an appeal by Senator Yakubu Lado and 42 others has finally laid to rest the issue of the nominated candidates in respect of the affected Legislative Houses seats for Katsina State.In effect, the list of nominated candidates submitted by the CPC to your Commission on 31 January, 2011 according to your commission’s timelines still subsists” John Baiyeshea said.Those to benefit from the apex court’s decision are Hon. Hadi Sirika, Abubakar Yar’ Adua, Sheikh Umar Abubakar, Sule Salisu, Ahmad Babba, Dr. Manir Abdukadir, Abbas Abdullahi Machika, Salisu Ado, Sani Bello Mashi and Isa Lawal Doro.The nation is still waiting to see how INEC would utilize its good offices to immediately retrieve the certificate of return wrongly issued to the occupants of these seats who are still in their offices as law makers.
