EKWU V. OSAWARU (2023)

Background

This case, Ekwu v. Osawaru, involves an appeal to the Supreme Court regarding an election petition. The appellants, who were candidates in the primary election of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) held on May 22, 2022, contest the validity of the primary election results against their rivals who emerged from a parallel election conducted by the National Working Committee of the PDP. The crux of the matter arose when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) determined that only candidates whose primaries were monitored would be recognized for the general elections. In response, the appellants filed their suit on June 6, 2022, after the INEC's notification on May 25, 2022.

Issues

The central issues in this case are:

1. Whether the lower court correctly held that the appellants’ suit was statute barred.
2. The definition of who constitutes an aspirant when two parallel primary elections are conducted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that:

1. Individuals participating in a primary election conducted by the State Committee of the party do not qualify as aspirants eligible to dispute primary results or seek judicial redress.
2. The cause of action in pre-election matters accrues on the date of the election, not when the parties become aware of subsequent actions affecting their status.

Court Findings

It was determined that:

1. The appellants’ action was indeed statute barred as it was filed outside the 14-day window stipulated by section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution.
2. The event leading to the suit was the primary election held on May 22, 2022; therefore, the time frame for filing the suit commenced on that date, not on the date of the letter from INEC.
3. The appellants’ grievances concerning the INEC letter did not initiate a new cause of action.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision that the suit filed by the appellants was outside the statutory timeframe and therefore inadmissible.

Significance

This case is significant as it clarifies the strict adherence to statutory timelines in pre-election matters and reinforces the necessity for aspirants to understand their standing in party primaries, particularly when multiple elections are conducted under different auspices. It emphasizes the importance of timely legal action and the consequences of failing to act within specified limits.