OSUN STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION V. ACTION . . . (2010)

Background

The case concerns the legality of section 10 of the Osun State Electoral Law, 2002, which stipulated a 21-day notice for local government elections. This was challenged based on its inconsistency with section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2006, which requires a 150-day notice. The plaintiffs, represented by Action Congress (AC), All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP), and the National Conscience Party (NCP), sought legal declarations and injunctive reliefs against the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSIEC).

Issues

The core issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly declared section 10 of the Electoral Law unconstitutional due to its inconsistency with section 31 of the Electoral Act.
2. Whether the lower court was justified in nullifying the local government elections conducted on December 15, 2007.
3. Whether the appellants had the right to complain about their fair hearing since they were not parties to the original suit.
4. Whether the lower court's orders were valid despite some reliefs being abandoned in the notice of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that:

1. Section 10 of the Osun State Electoral Law was indeed inconsistent with the federal legislation, specifically section 31 of the Electoral Act.
2. By virtue of the Constitution's provisions, federal laws prevail over state laws in instances of conflict, thereby nullifying the state law.
3. The appellants' claims of fair hearing were disregarded, as they failed to join the original proceedings, effectively denying their right to contest the nullification of the elections.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

1. Section 10’s 21-day notice was declared null and void as it failed to meet the mandate outlined in section 31 of the Electoral Act.
2. The local government elections conducted without proper notice were illegal.
3. The appellants could not claim breach of fair hearing since they neglected to participate in the earlier proceedings.

Conclusion

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals from both sets of appellants, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision to set aside the elections conducted based on the invalid statute. The court upheld the necessity for a new election in compliance with the federal electoral laws, ensuring a fair and legally mandated electoral process.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions in electoral processes, particularly the supremacy of federal law over state law. It also highlights the necessity for political parties and candidates to actively participate in legal proceedings that could affect their interests in electoral matters to preserve their rights.