Background
The case arises from the governorship election conducted on June 18, 2022, in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Chief Olusegun Oni, representing the Social Democratic Party (SDP), contested against Abiodun Abayomi Oyebanji of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Following the announcement of election results, which declared Oyebanji as the winner, Oni challenged the outcome citing various grounds including the alleged disqualification of Oyebanji and procedural irregularities in the nomination process.
Issues
This case presented several critical legal issues which the Supreme Court had to resolve:
- Whether the lower court erred in upholding the Tribunal's decision to strike out portions of the petition regarding the qualifications of the respondents.
- Whether the Tribunal held the correct jurisdiction concerning the nomination and sponsorship of candidates by political parties.
- Whether the decision to strike out the petitioners' reply to the respondents' reply was justified.
- Whether the appellants’ rights to fair hearing were violated.
- Whether the court failed to address contradictions in the documentation presented by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's findings that the issues raised pertained to the internal affairs of the political party, thus falling outside the jurisdiction of the Governorship Election Tribunal per Section 285(2) of the 1999 Constitution. The Court reinforced that only eligible members of a party can challenge nominations, and found that the appellants lacked locus standi to question the nomination of the respondents.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court ruled that:
- The challenges regarding the qualifications of the candidates were inherently pre-election matters that must be addressed in a different court.
- The appellants did not successfully prove their claims that the respondents were disqualified.
- The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction when striking out the appellants’ reply because it introduced new facts not previously raised in the initial petition, contrary to electoral regulations.
- In instances of dissenting opinions, only the majority judgment is binding.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting the appellants' claims. The appointments and internal party decisions leading to the nomination of Oyebanji were deemed valid, reinforcing the finality of the electoral outcome as declared by INEC.
Significance
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the delineation of jurisdiction between electoral tribunals and higher courts regarding pre-election matters, upholding the principle that internal political party decisions are generally non-justiciable, thus narrowing the grounds upon which candidates can be challenged post-election.