DAHIRU V. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) (2016)

Background

This appeal arose from a dispute concerning the All Progressive Congress (APC) governorship primaries conducted in Sokoto State on 4 December 2014. Senator Umaru Dahiru and Barrister Abubakar Sanyinna, together with Rt. Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, participated in the primaries. Tambuwal was declared the winner and was subsequently nominated and sponsored by the APC to contest the Sokoto State governorship election.

The appellants were dissatisfied with the conduct of the primaries. They alleged that the process breached section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010, the APC’s guidelines for the nomination of candidates, the party’s constitution and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Having exhausted the party’s internal mechanisms, they commenced an action by originating summons at the Federal High Court, Abuja, on 27 January 2015. The action sought declarations that the primaries were unlawful, null and void, together with orders directing the APC to withdraw Tambuwal’s nomination and conduct fresh primaries. They also sought orders restraining INEC from placing Tambuwal’s name on the ballot.

While the suit was pending, the Sokoto State gubernatorial election was conducted on 11 April 2015 and Tambuwal was declared the winner. The respondents then challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, arguing that the reliefs sought had been overtaken by events and that the action had become academic. The trial court rejected the objection and held that it retained jurisdiction. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal held that the suit had become academic and struck it out. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the appellants’ pre-election suit had become academic merely because the general election had been conducted and the candidate had been declared the winner.
2. Whether the appeal before the Court of Appeal was premature, having regard to the nature of the trial court’s ruling and the unresolved substantive claims.
3. What is the proper role of a respondent in an appeal where there is no respondent’s notice or cross-appeal?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that a suit is academic only where it has become theoretical, produces no practical utility and no longer presents a live issue capable of judicial determination. The mere fact that an election has taken place does not automatically extinguish a pre-election cause of action founded on an alleged breach of the Electoral Act or a political party’s nomination guidelines.

Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 expressly gives an aspirant who complains that the statutory provisions or the guidelines of a political party were not complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate a right to apply to the Federal High Court, a State High Court or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory for redress. The appellants’ complaint fell squarely within that provision. Their action was commenced before the gubernatorial election and challenged the legality of the process by which the APC selected its candidate. It therefore remained a live pre-election matter even after the election had been held.

The Court relied on authorities including Amaechi v. INEC, Ugwu v. Ararume, Adeogun v. Fashogbon, Odedo v. INEC and Gwede v. INEC. Those cases establish that the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to determine pre-election disputes remains intact notwithstanding the subsequent conduct of the election. Reliefs challenging the validity of a nomination or substitution may still be enforced where the court finds that the electoral process or party procedure was unlawful.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had wrongly treated the injunctive reliefs as decisive of the entire action. Although some interlocutory orders aimed at preventing the 2015 election could no longer be granted after the election had concluded, that did not render the declaratory reliefs or the underlying cause of action worthless. The court was still capable of determining whether the primaries complied with the Electoral Act and APC guidelines and of granting appropriate consequential relief if the appellants succeeded.

The Court also emphasized the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court of Appeal was bound by earlier Supreme Court decisions dealing with substantially similar pre-election disputes. Its departure from those authorities was held to be erroneous and contrary to the need for certainty, consistency and public confidence in judicial decisions.

In addition, the Supreme Court restated that a respondent’s function is ordinarily to support the judgment appealed against. Unless a respondent files a respondent’s notice or cross-appeal, the respondent cannot properly seek to attack or vary the judgment in a manner outside the appellant’s grounds of appeal. The ambivalent submissions of INEC were therefore discountenanced, and the failure of Tambuwal to file a brief meant that he could not urge a contrary position before the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had struck out the Federal High Court action as academic, was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Federal High Court, Abuja, for hearing and determination on the merits and with dispatch. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

Significance

This decision protects the statutory right of political-party aspirants to challenge irregularities in party primaries. It confirms that the subsequent conduct of an election does not provide a procedural escape from adjudication of a properly instituted pre-election suit. The case also distinguishes between reliefs that may become practically unavailable after an election and a cause of action that remains legally alive. Its broader importance lies in reaffirming access to court, fair hearing and judicial adherence to precedent in Nigerian electoral litigation.