Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

INEC V.Asuquo (2018) CLR 2(u) (SC)

Judgement delivered on February 23rd 2018

Brief

  • Judicial notice
  • Cross River State Law No. 7 (2007)
  • INEC – Function of in relation to dividing states for electoral purposes
  • Section 122(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011
  • Section 91 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 113 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 112 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 114 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 4(7)(a) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 115 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 4(7) of the Constitution
  • Section 8(4) of the Constitution

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division delivered on the 6th day of December 2013 in Appeal No. CAC/C/NAEA/102/12 wherein the lower Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellants herein. The relevant facts leading to this appeal as can be garnered from the record of appeal may be stated as hereunder.

The Appellants, upon the ceding of parts of Bakassi Local Government Area of Cross River State to the Republic of Cameroun re-delineated the Bakassi State Constituency to encompass the unceded parts of Bakassi Local Government Area and the Resettlement Areas of Daysprings 1 and 2. That thereafter, the Appellants carried out voter registration and conducted all their elections based on the said re-delineated Bakassi State Constituency.

In 2007, the Cross River State Government enacted Cross River State Law No. 7 which carved out three (3) wards of Ikang in Akpabuyo Local Government Area and made them part of Bakassi Local Government Area, which it then referred to as "New Bakassi Local Government Area''.

The Respondents and some other parties thereafter requested that the Appellants recognize the provisions of the said Cross River State Law No. 7 so as to register voters and conduct all its subsequent elections based on the constituency delineation in the said Cross River State Law No. 7. That some other indigenes of Bakassi Local Government Area also insisted that the Appellants continue to carry out its activities based on the constituency re-delineation it carried out after the said ceding of parts of Bakassi to Cameroun.

The Respondents then filed a suit under the originating summons procedure urging the Court to compel the Appellants to obey Cross River State Law No. 7 in the conduct of its 2011 elections. Two questions were posed by the Respondents for the trial Court to answer. These questions are:

  • 1.
    Whether the conduct of February 2012 Elections in Bakassi and subsequent ones should be based on ward delineation based on current Bakassi Local Government Area created pursuant to Law No 7 or should be based on ward delineation based on Bakassi Local Government Area as existed before the ceding of Bakassi to the cameroun.
  • 2.
    Whether given the decision of this Honourable Court in suit No.FHC/CA/CS/41/2011 delivered on the 8th July, 2011, INEC can de-recognize the three wards of Ikang as Bakassi Local Government Area or do anything contrary to the Orders of the said judgment.

Upon the determination of the above questions, the plaintiffs then sought the following declarations or reliefs:

  • i.
    A Declaration that the Defendants conduct the upcoming February 25, 2012 Elections in Bakassi Local Government Area of Cross River State and subsequent ones in accordance with ward delineation based on the current Bakassi Local Government created pursuant to Law No 7 of Cross River State House of Assembly and not based on the ward delineation as existed before the ceding of Bakassi to the Cameroun.
  • ii.
    A Declaration that given the decision of this Honourable Court in suit No.FHC/CA/CS47/2011 delivered on the 8th July, 2011, the Defendants cannot disregard the three wards of Ikang as the current Bakassi Local Government Area or do anything contrary to the Orders of the said judgment.

Another suit (suit No. FHC/CA/CS/21/2012) was also filed by other parties on similar facts also urging the Court to compel the Appellants to obey the said Cross River State Law No.7. The Federal High Court delivered judgment in both matters in favour of the Respondents herein.

The Appellants appealed both judgments to the Court of Appeal which resulted in two conflicting decisions of the Court below. Appeal No CA/C/79/2012 was resolved in favour of the Appellants upholding their contention that the appellants cannot be compelled to obey Cross River State Law No.7 of 2007, whereas Appeal No. CA/C/NAEA/102/2012 upheld the decision of the Federal High Court to the effect that Cross River State Law No 7 of 2012 ought to be obeyed by the Appellants.

Not being satisfied with the decision of the lower Court in Appeal No. CA/C/NAEA/2012 delivered on 6th December, 2013, the Appellants have further appealed to this Court.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether in the light of Constitutional Provisions, the Appellants...
    Read More