TThis is another political matter involving substitution, a new trend in Nigerian politics where the game is changed midstream. It affects the political party of the Peoples Democratic Party, the 2nd Respondent. The quarrel looks more of an in house affair, the inclusion of the 1st Respondent notwithstanding. We have done a few in the past; we are asked to do this also. We must. The matter involves so much of the interpretation of the Electoral Act, 2006. What are the facts? What gave rise to the substitution?

Charles ChinwenduOdedo, the Appellant, a member of the Peoples Democratic Party bearing the acronym, PDP, contested the primary elections, along with ten others. That was on 24th November, 2006. It was for the Idemili North and South Federal Constituency in Anambra State. He won. Following the result of the election, the PDP submitted his name to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 1st Respondent. That was on 20th December, 2006. INEC duly published the name of the Appellant as a person who was cleared to contest the election. The necessary documentation was completed by INEC and the Appellant thought the coast was free or clear for him to contest the election with other political parties. But that was not to be. He had a surprise. I think he also had a shock.

On or about 27th February, 2007, Appellant got information that his name was substituted with that of ObinnaChidioka who appears in this appeal as "party to be heard". I must confess that this is quite a new one to me. I have never come across such a party in our law of procedure. We learn everyday. I will not go there because the parties do not seem to have joined issue on it. And so let ObinnaChidioka remain as ''party to be heard” and we must hear him. We will not hear him alone;

we must hear all the other parties, though they are not styled as parties to be heard. As I said, we learn everyday.

Aggrieved, Appellant went to the Federal High Court. He did not file the usual action. He filed an unusual one. It was an application for judicial review of the action of the Respondents in relation to the substitution of his name with that of Obinna Chidioka

The learned trial Judge found that there was evidence (from the plaintiffs) that there were other children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada who were not mentioned in Exhibit A. He therefore found that those other children and grandchildren acquired no interest in the land granted. The learned trial Judge observed that there was no averment in the statement of claim that the Aige family ever granted or allotted the land in dispute delineated on Exhibit A to Chief T.A. Dada.He thereby sought a declaration that the 2nd Respondent having submitted a list of PDP candidates it proposed to sponsor at the 2007 election into the House of Representatives for Anambra State Federal Constituencies to the 1st Respondent pursuant to Section 32 of the Electoral Act 2006, a substitution of the Applicant's name on the said list with that of ObinnaChidiola after the 20th Feb, 2007 was unconstitutional, null and void. He also sought an Order of Prohibition to restrain the 1st Respondent from publishing the new list of PDP candidates or using it for elections. Finally, he applied for an order of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to publish a statement of the full names of PDP candidates standing nominated for elections into the Federal House of Representatives for the Federal Constituencies in Anambra State as submitted to it by the 2nd Respondent on 23rd December 2006 in accordance with Section 30 of the Electoral Act. 2006.

The learned trial Judge, Faji J., refused to grant the reliefs sought by the Appellant. He held that the substitution was carried out in line with Section 34 of the Electoral Act and dismissed the Plaintiff's action. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff/Appellant went to the Court of Appeal. There was a split decision of the panel of Mika'ilu, Denton-West and Bada, JJCA. Mika'ilu and Bada, JJCA struck out the appeal on the ground that it was a mere academic exercise, since the election was already conducted and an election tribunal was already set up. However, Denton-West, JCA parted ways with her learned brothers. She allowed the appeal and struck out the cross appeal. In the interest of justice, equity, fair play. Stilldissatisfied, the Appellant went on to the Supreme Court.