ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) V. UDUJI (2020)

Background

This case arises from a legal dispute involving the All Progressives Congress (APC) regarding the validity of candidates' lists submitted for the 2019 general elections in Enugu State. The 1st respondent, Kingsley Godwin Uduji, claimed he was an aspirant in the APC's primary elections, which were allegedly never held. After the APC submitted a list of candidates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that did not include him, Uduji filed a suit seeking to invalidate the APC's submitted candidates based on the failure to conduct proper primaries.

Issues

The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing several critical issues:

1. Whether nullifying the candidate list without giving the aspirants an opportunity to be heard breached Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
2. Whether the lower court correctly assumed jurisdiction over Uduji's suit.
3. Whether INEC had the authority to reject the list submitted by the APC.

Ratio Decidendi

The court's ruling hinged on several legal principles:

1. Jurisdiction is foundational; a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity.
2. Fair hearing is an inviolable right; negating it leads to the automatic rendering of judgments as nullities.
3. Political parties possess exclusive prerogative in conducting their primary elections.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court determined that the lower courts erred in several respects:

1. The failure to join the 37 candidates impacted their rights and amounted to a breach of fair hearing rights.
2. The action was statute-barred, as it was filed well beyond the statutory timelines set forth in the Constitution.
3. INEC's role does not extend to validating candidates without a proper primary election, reaffirming the autonomy of political parties in this context.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously held that both the trial court and the appellate court had acted without jurisdiction, therefore rendering their judgments null and void. This confirms the primordial nature of fair hearing and the strict adherence to statutory timelines in pre-election matters.

Significance

This case underscores critical legal principles in Nigeria regarding the conduct of political party primaries and highlights the importance of procedural adherence within electoral contexts. It reaffirms the independence of political parties in determining their candidates, while also emphasizing the necessity for fair hearing as a constitutional safeguard in judicial proceedings.