By an Originating Summons filed on 26/10/2018, the appellant herein raised the following questions for determination:
-
1.
Considering the combined provisions of Sections 221 and 222 and other relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) , Article 7 (viii) (ix) and 20 of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and Paragraph II and the GENERAL Provisions of the 2014 Guideline for the Nomination of Candidates for public Offices of the All Progressives Congress (APC), whether the 1st defendant can or has the right or latitude to nominate or sponsor any candidate, or forward to the 2nd defendant, the name of any candidate for election to the National Assembly, other than as mandatorily provided by the combined effect of the afore-stated provisions of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and Guidelines of the 1st defendant.
-
2.
In view of the combined provisions of Sections 221 and 222 and other relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) Article 7 (vii), (ix) and 20 of the Constitution of the All progressives Congress (APC), and paragraph II and the GENERAL Provisions of the 2014 Guideline for the nomination of candidate for public offices of the All Progressives Congress (APC), whether the 1st defendant can or has the power to substitute or change the name of the plaintiff; who in conformity with the afore-stated provisions of the relevant laws and Guideline, secured the highest number of votes at the primary election conducted by the 1st defendant on 3rd October, 2018 to nominate a candidate, for the office of member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives with that of the id defendant who did not participate in the primary election or scored the highest number of votes at the said primary election.
-
3.
Having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 221 and 222 and other relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) , read together with all relevant provisions of the Constitution of All Progressives Congress (APC), and Guideline including Article 7 (viii) (ix) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Constitution, mandating the 1st defendant to promote and uphold the practice of internal democracy, and institutionalize, maintain and foster representative democracy, whether the 1st defendant can or has the power to substitute or change the name of the plaintiff, (who in conformity with the afore-stated provisions of the relevant laws and Guideline, secured the highest number of votes at the primary election conducted by the 1st defendant on 3rd October, 2018 to nominate a candidate, for the office of member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives or forward to the 2nd defendant, the name of the 3rd defendant who did not participate in the primary election or score the highest number of votes at the said primary election.
In the event that the questions were answered in his favour, he sought the following reliefs:
-
1.
A Declaration that the 1st defendant lacks the power and the vires to nominate or sponsor or forward to the 2nd defendant, the name of any candidate for election on the platform of the 1st defendant to the office of member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives or at the 2019 general elections other than as mandatorily provision by the relevant provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), as well as the Constitution and Guidelines of the 1st defendant.
-
2.
A Declaration that the 1st defendant does not possess the vires, power and authority to forward to 2nd defendant any other name (particularly, that of the 3rd defendant) than the name of the plaintiff who secured the highest number of the votes in the primary election organized by the 1st defendant and supervised by the 2nd defendant on 2nd October, 2018, to contest on the platform of the 1st defendant for the office of member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives or, at the general elections scheduled for 1999.
-
3.
A Declaration that the submission by the 1st defendant, to the 2nd defendant, of the name of the 3rd defendant to contest election on the platform of 1st defendant to the office of member representing Magama/Rilau at the Federal House of Representatives or at the general elections slated for 2019, even when he did not contest the primary is unconstitutional illegal, ultra vires, null and void, and of no effect.
-
(4)
A Declaration that the plaintiff, having secured the highest number of votes at the primary election conducted by the 1st defendant, and monitored by the 2nd defendant on 2nd October, 2018 to nominate a candidate that would represent the 1st defendant for the office of member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representative or remains the candidate of the 1st defendant for the Magama/Rijau constituency at the general election scheduled for 2019.
-
5.
A Declaration that the election of the plaintiff as the candidate who secured the highest number of votes at the primary election held by the 1st defendant, and monitored by the 2nd defendant to nominate a candidate that would represent the 1st defendant for the office of member representing Magama/Rijau the Federal House of Representatives at the general elections slated for 2019, subsists.
-
6.
An Order setting aside the nomination and/or submission by the 1st defendant to the defendant of the name of the 3rd defendant as the candidate to represent the 1st defendant for the office of member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives at the general elections slated for 2019.
-
7.
An Order of perpetual injunction restraining:
-
i.
The 1st defendant, whether by itself, national chairman, officers, agents, privies, or through any person or persons howsoever, from treating, presenting or holding out to the 2nd defendant in particular or to any person at all, the 3rd defendant as the candidate representing the 1st defendant as member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives at the general elections slated for 2019.
-
ii.
The 2nd defendant, whether by itself, officers, agents, privies, or through any person or persons howsoever, from treating or further treating, accepting or further accepting, publishing or further publishing the name of the 3rd defendant as the candidate representing the 1st defendant as member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives at the general elections slated for 2019.
-
iii.
The 2nd defendant, whether by itself, National chairman, officers, agents, privies or through any person or persons howsoever, from excluding or further excluding, withholding or further withholding the name of the plaintiff as the candidate representing the 1st defendant for the office of member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives at the general elections slated for 2019.
-
iv.
The 3rd defendant, whether by itself; national chairman, officers, agents, privies, or through any person or persons howsoever, from parading or further parading, presenting or further presenting, holding himself out, or further holding himself out, as the candidate representing the 1st defendant for the office of member representing Magama/Rijau at the Federal House of Representatives at the general elections slated for 2019.
The Originating Summons was supported by a 26 paragraph affidavit, deposed to by the appellant and several exhibits. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents filed counter affidavits to the summons. All the processes were supported with written addresses. The 1st respondent filed a preliminary objection to the competence of the suit.
There were several grounds for the objection. The one that is relevant to this appeal is:
That the suit is statute-barred having been filed in contravention of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999 as altered by the 4th) Alteration Act 2017, which mandatorily requires a pre-election matter to be filed within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the e vent, decision or action complained of.
The appellant and 1st respondent exchanged written addresses in support of and in opposition to the preliminary objection. In a considered judgment delivered on 14th February, 2019, the learned trial Judge overruled the preliminary objection and entered judgment in favour of the appellant, granting all his reliefs. On alleged non-compliance with Section 285 (9) of the Constitution, His Lordship held at page 932 Vol. 1 of the record:
"By the provisions of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) pre-election matters must be filed within the period of 14 days from "the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit."
The plaintiff's Originating Summons was dated and filed on 26th October, 2018 and it reveals the Plaintiff's claim as contained therein. The plaintiff in paragraphs 16 and 21 of his affidavit in support of his Originating Summons deposed that the primary election took place on the 3rd October, 2018. However, the critical issue which the Court must answer at this juncture is what exactly is the event, decision or action complained of by the plaintiff?
It is clear that the plaintiff is not complaining about the primary election and event that took place on the 3rd October, 2018. The plaintiff has stated over and over that the election took place on the 3rd October, 2018.
It is clear that what the plaintiff is complaining of is the submission of the name of the 3rd defendant by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant as the winner of the 1st defendant's primary election and nominee of the 1st defendant for the position for Magama/Rau Federal Constituency at the General Elections of 2019.
There is no controversy between all parties that the name of the 3rd defendant was submitted by the 1st defendant APC to the 2nd defendant INEC on the 18th October, 2018 less than 14 days from the date of 18th October, 2018 (Sic: 26th October, 2018) and I hold that this suit was filed within the stipulated period of 14 days allowed by the law."
The 1st respondent was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court below. The 1st respondent appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal. Dissatisfied, appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
