HON. BASSEY ETIM V. HON. BASSEY ALBERT AKPAN & OTHERS (2018)

Background

This appeal concerned the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) primary election conducted on 7 December 2014 to select its candidate for the Akwa Ibom North-East Senatorial District in the 2015 general election. Hon. Bassey Etim claimed that he won the primary and that the PDP improperly replaced or ignored his name in favour of Hon. Bassey Albert Akpan. The PDP forwarded Akpan’s name to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Akpan was subsequently treated as the party’s candidate.

Etim commenced proceedings at the Federal High Court, Uyo, seeking declarations that the PDP was bound by its constitution, primary-election guidelines and the result of the nomination process. He also sought orders compelling the PDP and INEC to recognise and field him as the candidate, together with orders setting aside the certificate of return issued to Akpan and directing that a fresh certificate be issued to him. The trial court granted most of the reliefs, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and upheld Akpan’s victory and nomination. Etim then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to accept the documentary evidence relied upon by Akpan and the PDP, particularly the authentic result sheet, rather than the result sheet tendered by Etim.
2. Whether Etim discharged the burden of proving that he participated in, and won, the primary election conducted under the authority of the PDP’s competent national organs.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal could adopt a comprehensive issue for determination instead of being bound by the several issues separately formulated by the appellant.
4. Whether the reliefs seeking the setting aside of INEC’s certificate of return and the issuance of a fresh certificate were within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
5. Whether any error in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning occasioned a miscarriage of justice warranting reversal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court is not obliged to determine an appeal strictly on the basis of the issues formulated by the appellant or other parties. It may adopt an issue formulated by a party, or formulate an issue of its own, provided that the issue arises from the grounds of appeal and is germane to the just and effective resolution of the dispute.

The Court reaffirmed that a claimant seeking declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his own case. The claimant cannot obtain judgment merely because the defence is weak, defective or contains an admission. Declaratory relief is discretionary and will only be granted where the claimant presents a strong, cogent and credible evidential foundation for the declaration sought.

In political-party primary disputes, the relevant party constitution and guidelines must be proved and applied. The Court emphasised that the power to conduct a primary election is vested in the party’s National Executive Committee or National Working Committee. Etim therefore had to establish that the persons who issued his alleged result sheet were authorised officers appointed by the competent organ of the PDP.

Court Findings

The appellant’s case depended substantially on Exhibit 8, which he said was the result sheet showing that he had won the primary. However, his own testimony and the evidence of the witnesses who allegedly conducted the primary contained material contradictions. Etim asserted that Michael George and Daniel Ekanem were the relevant officers, but also acknowledged that they were not members of the electoral panel. Daniel Ekanem, who testified as PW3, could not produce a letter of appointment and admitted that he was not a member of the panel. Michael George, PW5, gave a different account of his appointment.

The chairman of the electoral panel, Osuntokun, denied appointing those witnesses and denied that Exhibit 8 was the authentic result of the PDP primary. The Supreme Court held that these contradictions were fundamental, not minor discrepancies. Evidence inconsistent with a party’s pleadings, even if admitted without objection, must be treated as having no evidential value when the court evaluates the case. Since the appellant failed to prove the authenticity and lawful origin of Exhibit 8, he did not establish that he won the authorised primary election.

The Court also approved the Court of Appeal’s intervention because the trial court had relied on conflicting evidence and had effectively placed undue weight on perceived weaknesses in the respondents’ case. Although the trial court ordinarily has the primary responsibility for evaluating evidence, an appellate court may re-evaluate documentary evidence and correct an erroneous evaluation where justice requires it.

Justice Eko additionally observed that some of the appellant’s reliefs were internally contradictory. Reliefs seeking recognition as the already-fielded candidate sat uneasily with reliefs seeking orders compelling the PDP to field him. More importantly, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside an INEC certificate of return issued after a general election or to order INEC to issue a fresh certificate. Under section 285(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, read with sections 133 and 140 of the Electoral Act 2010, disputes concerning whether a person was validly elected to the National Assembly fall within the jurisdiction of the appropriate election tribunal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had set aside the Federal High Court’s decision and upheld Hon. Bassey Albert Akpan as the PDP’s successful nominee for the Akwa Ibom North-East Senatorial District primary. Costs of N500,000 were awarded in favour of the first respondent.

Significance

The decision reinforces several important principles in Nigerian electoral and civil procedure. A litigant seeking a declaration must prove entitlement through reliable evidence and cannot rely on admissions or defects in the opposing case. Material contradictions in the claimant’s own evidence may destroy the claim. The decision also clarifies the importance of proving lawful authorisation in intra-party primary disputes and confirms that the Federal High Court cannot assume the constitutional jurisdiction of an election tribunal over a concluded INEC general election. Finally, the judgment illustrates that an appellate court may reformulate issues where the parties have unnecessarily fragmented them, and that an appellate error will justify reversal only where it causes a miscarriage of justice.