INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION V. MURI EDET ETIM (2018)

CASE SUMMARY

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Musa Dattijo Muhammad JSC
  • Kumai Bayang Akaahs JSC
  • John Inyang Okoro JSC
  • Amina Adamu Augie JSC
  • Ejembi Eko JSC
  • Paul Adamu Galinje JSC
  • Sidi Dauda Bage JSC

Suit number: SC. 311/2014

Delivered on: 2018-02-23

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Independent National Electoral Commission

Respondent:

  • Muri Edet Etim Asuquo et al.

Background

This case arose out of the need to adjust the local government boundaries in Cross River State after parts of the Bakassi local government area were ceded to Cameroon. The Cross River State House of Assembly enacted Cross River State Law No. 7 of 2007, which adjusted boundaries by incorporating three wards from the Akpabuyo local government area into Bakassi. This prompted a legal challenge regarding the authority of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct elections based on this newly enacted law.

Issues

The core issues for determination were:

  1. Whether the appellants (INEC) could be compelled to follow Cross River State Law No. 7 of 2007 regarding the delineation of constituencies for voter registration.
  2. Whether the courts are mandated to take judicial notice of the Constitution and relevant statutes in their rulings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court determined that:

  1. A State House of Assembly cannot create or delineate State constituencies for elections; this power resides solely with the INEC as per sections 112, 113, and 114 of the 1999 Constitution.
  2. The court is obligated to take judicial notice of constitutional provisions, including the necessary functions and powers conferred on the INEC.

Court Findings

The court found that:

  1. Law No. 7 of 2007 did not create or delineate State constituencies but merely adjusted local government boundaries.
  2. By statute, the Cross River State House of Assembly had the authority to adjust these boundaries, but this did not extend to electoral boundaries which are under the purview of the INEC.

Conclusion

The ruling by the lower courts which compelled INEC to adhere to the provisions of Law No. 7 was overturned. The Supreme Court held that while the law adjusted local government boundaries, INEC is not bound to create or use constituencies defined by State legislation for electoral purposes.

Significance

This case is significant as it highlights the delineation of powers between federal and state legislative bodies in Nigeria. It reinforces the independence of the INEC in electoral matters and clarifies that state laws cannot supersede constitutional provisions governing elections. This ensures consistent and uniform application of electoral laws across Nigeria.

Counsel:

  • Victor O. Odjemu Esq.
  • W. S. Ogar Esq.