Background
The case of Onolememen v. I.N.E.C arises from the aftermath of a contested primary election held on 23 May 2022 for the House of Assembly in Edo State. The appellants, who were aspirants in this election, claimed to have won a primary monitored by INEC. Following their assertion, a parallel election was conducted by the National Working Committee of the PDP, leading to the emergence of different candidates. I.N.E.C. issued a letter informing the party that only candidates recognized through its monitored congresses would be acknowledged. The appellants subsequently filed an action in the Federal High Court seeking to enforce their claims, but their case was later struck out by the Court of Appeal for being statute-barred.
Issues
The key issues for determination include:
- Whether the lower court was justified in maintaining that the appellants’ action was statute-barred.
- How the court should determine the validity of two parallel primary elections.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasized a number of pertinent points regarding litigation timelines and locus standi. The court noted that where two parallel primary elections occur, only participants from the recognized primary (conducted by the National Executive Committee) hold standing to seek judicial redress. The appellants failed to demonstrate their legitimate participation in the valid primary, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.
Court Findings
The court made several critical findings:
- It upheld that the cause of action arose on 23 May 2022, the date of the primary election, and thus the appellants were out of time when they filed their action on 6 June 2022 — 15 days later than the allowed 14-day period as per section 285(9) of the Nigerian Constitution.
- It clarified that knowledge of the occurrence of an infraction is not a factor affecting the commencement of the statutory timeline and emphasized that action must stem from the date of the event itself, not awareness of the outcome.
Conclusion
The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the court reinforcing the necessity for compliance with statutory timelines when filing pre-election matters, and affirming the importance of recognizing only properly conducted primary elections pertinent to party nominations.
Significance
This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines in electoral matters in Nigeria. It offers clarity on the legal principles governing the standing of candidates in primary elections, emphasizing that only those involved in validly conducted primaries can contest for elections and seek redress in the courts. This ruling serves as a precedent for future electoral disputes and highlights the judiciary’s role in maintaining the integrity of electoral processes.