site logo

BASHIR MOHAMMED DALHATU V. IBRAHIM SAMINU TURAKI & ORS (2003 (2003)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Idris Legbo Kutigi, JSC (Presiding)
  • Michael Ekundayo Ogundare, JSC
  • Aloysius I. Katsina-Alu, JSC
  • Umaru Atu Kalgo, JSC
  • Akintola Olufemi Ejiwunmi, JSC
  • Niki Tobi, JSC
  • Dennis Onyejife Edozie, JSC

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Bashir Mohammed Dalhatu

Respondents:

  • Ibrahim Saminu Turaki
  • Alh. Dalhatu Attahiru Bafarawa
  • Mohammed Lawal
  • John E. K. Odigie Oyegun
  • Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
Suit number: SC. 31/2003

Background

The case of Bashir Mohammed Dalhatu v. Ibrahim Saminu Turaki & Ors was deliberated by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, where the appellant, Bashir Mohammed Dalhatu, challenged the recognition of Ibrahim Saminu Turaki as the gubernatorial candidate of the All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP) for Jigawa State in the 2003 elections. The primary elections were held on January 3, 2003, with conflicting results from two separate primaries in Kano and Dutse. Dalhatu was declared winner in Kano, while Turaki won in Dutse, leading to the action by Dalhatu against the party's recognition of Turaki.

Issues

The primary legal issues addressed included:

  1. Whether the principles established in Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) could oust the jurisdiction of the court.
  2. Whether the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Court of Appeal that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over internal political party matters. The court reiterated that the right to nominate and sponsor a candidate is a domestic affair of the political party, guided by its constitution, and not justiciable in a court of law.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court discovered:

  1. The matter was clearly a domestic issue within the ANPP that did not warrant judicial intervention.
  2. The High Court's attempt to assume jurisdiction was flawed, as it contravened established precedents, particularly Onuoha v. Okafor.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed Dalhatu's appeal, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal that the High Court had no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the party.

Significance

The ruling is significant in reinforcing the principle that courts should not interfere in the internal workings of political parties, thus maintaining the integrity of political party processes and the doctrine of judicial precedent, which requires lower courts to adhere to higher court decisions without deviation.