ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS V. AGUELE & OTHERS (2021)

Background

This case revolves around an electoral dispute concerning the nomination process for the chairmanship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the Esan South Local Government Area.

Facts

The primary election held on January 24, 2018, purportedly resulted in Mr. Peter Aguele claiming victory over Mr. Victor Emu Akhagbon, who was presented as a consensus candidate. Mr. Aguele subsequently filed an originating summons in the High Court of Edo State, challenging the legitimacy of Akhagbon's nomination, asserting he won the primary election and thus should be recognized as the APC’s candidate.

Issues

The key legal issues in this case include:

1. Jurisdiction: Whether the High Court Benin Judicial Division had jurisdiction since the cause of action arose in the Ubiaja Judicial Division.
2. Political Party's Rights: Whether the court could intervene in the internal nomination processes of political parties.
3. Weight of Evidence: Whether the judgment was against the weight of evidence presented.
4. Refund of Salaries: If the court was correct in ordering the refund of salaries to Mr. Aguele since the 3rd appellant was found to have been wrongfully sworn in as chairman.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that:

1. The High Court of Edo State is a single entity, irrespective of its judicial divisions.
2. Issues related to candidate nominations can be justiciable when they involve a breach of electoral laws, thus allowing judicial review.
3. The evidence provided by the 1st respondent was credible, establishing his victory in the primary election.
4. The 3rd appellant was ordered to refund salaries received while holding the chairmanship position illegally.

Court Findings

The court found that:

1. The trial court had jurisdiction as it was acting within its constitutional powers.
2. The issues raised by Mr. Aguele were justiciable, allowing for intervention.
3. Mr. Aguele successfully proved his status as the legitimate candidate based on the evidence presented, including testimonies and documentary evidence.
4. The order for the 3rd appellant to refund salaries was sound in law as he was found to be unlawfully occupying the position.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed for being statute-barred due to failure to adhere to the 60-day limitation period required for pre-election matters as outlined in section 285(12) of the Nigerian Constitution.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of adhering to electoral laws and timelines, emphasizing that courts have jurisdiction to enforce compliance with electoral processes. It also illustrates the imperative for political parties to conduct transparent and lawful nomination procedures to maintain legitimacy in electoral politics.