ENANG V. ASUQUO (2023)

Background

This case arises from a gubernatorial primary election conducted by the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. The appellant, Mr. Akanimo Asuquo, contested in this primary but was declared the loser, with the first respondent, Senator (Dr.) Ita Solomon Enang, being declared the winner. Asuquo challenged the legitimacy of Enang’s candidacy, arguing that Enang was not a registered member of the APC, having participated in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary elections just a day prior to the APC primaries.

Issues

The Supreme Court examined the following issues:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of membership justiciability within the party’s internal affairs.
2. Whether the waiver granted to Enang allowed him to contest in the APC primaries.
3. Whether Asuquo's claims about party membership validity were justiciable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, underscoring that issues regarding party membership fall under the internal affairs of political parties, thereby rendering them non-justiciable in court. The court reaffirmed that membership discussions are to be resolved internally within the party's framework.

Court Findings

In reviewing the case, the court emphasized key findings:

1. The determination of a court’s jurisdiction is primarily based on the plaintiff’s claim as presented in originating processes.
2. It is established that membership of a political party is an internal affair thus lacking justiciability.
3. The waiver process, upheld by the APC's National Working Committee, confirmed that Enang had fulfilled the requirements for contesting, validly placing him as a party member.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision which overturned the lower court's judgment that favored Asuquo, confirming that all necessary protocols were observed in declaring Enang the APC candidate.

Significance

This case emphasizes the non-justiciable nature of internal political party membership issues, reinforcing that the judicial system does not interfere in private organizational affairs unless clear statutory provisions indicate otherwise. This ruling aims to protect political parties' rights to self-governance while ensuring compliance with electoral regulations.