BARR. EMMANUEL NNABUIKE NWITE V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS. (2022)

Background

This appeal concerned the nomination of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate for the Ezza-North/Ishielu Federal Constituency of Ebonyi State for the 2023 House of Representatives election. Barrister Emmanuel Nnabuike Nwite, the appellant, contested an initial PDP primary election held on 28 May 2022. That election was subsequently cancelled by the party for alleged non-compliance with its constitution and primary-election guidelines. A rescheduled primary was held on 4 June 2022. Nwite participated in that election with other aspirants and was declared the winner after scoring 46 of the 74 votes cast.

Despite this result, the PDP later submitted the name of Dr. Johnson Obinna Nwachukwu, the third respondent, to INEC as its candidate. The PDP admitted that Nwite had won the rescheduled primary but asserted that it retained the right to present a “saleable candidate” who, in its view, had a better prospect of winning the general election. Nwachukwu had either not participated in the rescheduled primary or, on the evidence relied upon by the Supreme Court, scored zero votes.

Nwite commenced proceedings at the Federal High Court, Abakaliki, seeking declarations that he was entitled to be nominated, that the substitution of his name was unlawful, and orders directing the PDP to submit his name to INEC. The trial court dismissed his suit in a brief judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. Nwite then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether Nwite could derive legal rights from the 4 June 2022 primary, particularly in view of other judgments said to have nullified PDP primaries in Ebonyi State.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to treat the trial court’s reference to another suit number as an accidental slip and substitute a different case number.
3. Whether an affidavit sworn by counsel representing the third respondent was admissible or could properly be relied upon.
4. Whether the lower courts properly evaluated the affidavit and documentary evidence before them.
5. Whether the PDP had power to disregard the result of a valid primary and substitute a candidate of its choice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It held that section 84(5)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act 2022 imposes a binding obligation on a political party conducting indirect primaries. The aspirant who obtains the highest number of votes must be declared the winner, and that aspirant’s name must be forwarded to INEC as the party’s candidate. Once the party has conducted the primary and declared a winner, it has no unfettered discretion to replace that winner merely because another person is considered more electable or “saleable.”

The Court further held that section 84(14) of the Electoral Act creates a specific and narrow statutory exception to the general rule that the internal affairs of political parties are not ordinarily justiciable. An aspirant who actually participated in a party primary may approach the Federal High Court where the party failed to comply with the Electoral Act, its constitution, or its guidelines in selecting or nominating a candidate. Nwite satisfied this requirement because he participated in, and won, the rescheduled primary.

Court Findings

The Court rejected the argument that earlier decisions relating to PDP governorship primaries had nullified the 4 June National Assembly primary. Under section 128(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, the contents of a judgment must be proved by the judgment itself. The relevant judgments, when examined, dealt with the governorship primary and did not cancel the Ezza-North/Ishielu Federal Constituency primary. The Court of Appeal therefore erred by relying on those decisions and by importing a different suit number into the trial court’s judgment.

An appellate court is bound by an unchallenged record of appeal. If a party believes that the record contains a slip or mistake, the proper procedure is to challenge the record or apply for its amendment. Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act empowers the Court of Appeal to amend the record, but no such application had been made in this case. The Court of Appeal consequently acted improperly when it unilaterally altered the record on the basis of counsel’s assertion that the reference was an accidental slip.

On the affidavit sworn by counsel, the Supreme Court explained that the Evidence Act governs competence and admissibility. Rules 20(1), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 prohibit a lawyer from acting as both advocate and witness for a client in a contentious matter, but breach of those rules does not automatically render the affidavit inadmissible. The lawyer may face professional disciplinary consequences, yet admissibility depends on the Evidence Act and other applicable legislation.

The Court also found that the trial court failed in its primary duty to evaluate the affidavit evidence. Merely referring to the parties’ affidavits and stating a preference for one party’s arguments is not evaluation. Proper evaluation requires a reasoned assessment of the evidence, findings on material facts, and an explanation of why one version is preferred over another. Since the evidence was documentary in the form of affidavits, the appellate courts were in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate it. When the Court of Appeal failed to do so, the Supreme Court invoked section 22 of the Supreme Court Act and evaluated the evidence itself.

Perverse Findings and Internal Party Democracy

The Supreme Court described the decisions of the lower courts as perverse because they ran contrary to the uncontroverted evidence, ignored obvious facts, and occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The PDP’s own counter-affidavit admitted that Nwite won the rescheduled primary and that the party substituted him because it believed Nwachukwu had a better chance of success. That admission demonstrated a deliberate breach of the Electoral Act and the party’s own guidelines.

The Court reaffirmed that political parties must obey the Constitution, the Electoral Act, their constitutions, and their electoral guidelines. Although courts do not ordinarily select candidates for political parties, section 84(14) permits judicial intervention where a party violates those legal and regulatory instruments. The provision was enacted to curb arbitrary substitutions and strengthen internal democracy. The Court stated that the era of recklessness and impunity by political parties must end.

Conclusion and Orders

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and entered judgment for Nwite. It declared null and void the PDP’s submission and publication of Nwachukwu’s name as the candidate for the constituency. The PDP was ordered to submit Nwite’s name to INEC in place of Nwachukwu’s name, and INEC was directed to accept and recognize Nwite as the PDP candidate for the 2023 House of Representatives election. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

Significance

Nwite v. PDP is a significant authority on the enforceability of party-primary procedures under the Electoral Act 2022. It confirms that a political party cannot conduct a primary, declare a winner, and then replace that winner solely on political or electoral calculations. It also clarifies the evidential consequences of relying on the contents of judgments, the procedure for correcting appellate records, the professional distinction between inadmissibility and misconduct by counsel, and the power of an appellate court to evaluate documentary evidence where a trial court has failed to do so.