PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) & ORS. V. SOPULUCHUKWU E. EZEONWUKA & ORS. (2017)

Background

This decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria concerned a dispute arising from the Peoples Democratic Party’s primary election for the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency of Anambra State ahead of the 2015 National Assembly election. Barrister Sopuluchukwu Ezeonwuka participated in the primary alongside several other aspirants. He claimed that he obtained the highest number of votes, namely 55, and was declared winner by the returning officer. He alleged that the PDP nevertheless refused to forward his name to the Independent National Electoral Commission and intended to replace him with another aspirant.

Ezeonwuka commenced an action by originating summons at the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking declarations that he was the only qualified, authentic, duly elected and validly nominated PDP candidate. The other aspirants, including Hon. Ben Nwankwo, were not joined as parties. The PDP’s counter-affidavit appeared to concede that Ezeonwuka had scored the highest number of votes. The trial court granted the reliefs and directed INEC to recognise and publish Ezeonwuka’s name as the PDP candidate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the PDP’s appeal but made a consequential order directing that a re-run primary election be conducted with Ezeonwuka as the PDP candidate. The matter reached the Supreme Court in two related appeals. During the proceedings, the original PDP appellants filed a notice withdrawing their appeal. Ben Nwankwo, who had been granted leave to appeal as an interested person and joined as a co-appellant, opposed the withdrawal and pursued his own appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the original PDP appellants was validly withdrawn under Order 8 rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal could deliver judgment without first determining Nwankwo’s pending application for leave to appeal and joinder.
3. Whether the courts below had jurisdiction to determine and impose the PDP’s candidate for the election.
4. Whether the action was competent in the absence of the other aspirants, particularly Nwankwo, whose interests would be directly affected.
5. Whether the PDP could substitute a candidate whose name had already been submitted to INEC, where the candidate had neither died nor withdrawn.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an appellant may withdraw an appeal before it is called for hearing, but the procedural consequences are governed by Order 8 rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules. Where the notice is properly filed and the appellant’s authority is established, the appeal is deemed dismissed under the Rule. The Court accepted that a litigant has the right to engage counsel of choice and to disengage counsel at discretion. It further held that the National Legal Adviser of the PDP National Caretaker Committee had sufficient authority to disengage the former counsel and withdraw the appeal on behalf of the original appellants. The first appeal was therefore dismissed pursuant to the withdrawal rule.

On the substantive appeal brought by Nwankwo, the Court held that a court has a duty to determine all pending applications before delivering final judgment. Failure to do so may breach the affected party’s constitutional right to fair hearing. However, the Court examined the record and found no proof that a relevant application remained pending in the particular appeal when the Court of Appeal delivered judgment. The complaint on that issue therefore failed.

The Court distinguished a genuine complaint about non-compliance with the Electoral Act or a political party’s guidelines from a claim seeking to compel a political party to sponsor a particular candidate. Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 confers a narrow jurisdiction on the courts. The complainant must be an aspirant who participated in the primary and must allege non-compliance with the Act or the party’s guidelines. The courts do not ordinarily have jurisdiction to select or impose a political party’s candidate, because candidate nomination and sponsorship are principally matters of the party’s internal affairs.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that Ezeonwuka’s own affidavit stated that the primary election had complied with the Electoral Act and the PDP’s electoral guidelines. His real complaint was that the PDP intended to substitute his name or submit another person’s name. That complaint did not fall within the narrow jurisdiction created by section 87(9). The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to compel the PDP to sponsor Ezeonwuka, and the Court of Appeal equally lacked jurisdiction to order a re-run primary with Ezeonwuka imposed as the party’s candidate.

The Court also held that the action was improperly constituted. Ezeonwuka’s claim to be the only authentic and valid candidate necessarily affected all the other aspirants. A declaration in his favour would effectively disqualify any aspirant whose name had been submitted to INEC. Such persons were necessary parties and were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard under section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution. The failure to join Nwankwo and the other affected aspirants occasioned a breach of fair hearing and deprived the lower courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate competently.

The Supreme Court relied on the record to determine that Nwankwo had been recognised by the PDP as its candidate, that his name had been submitted to INEC, and that he had contested and won the general election. Under sections 33 and 36 of the Electoral Act, 2010, a political party could not substitute a duly nominated candidate whose name had been submitted to INEC except where the candidate died or withdrew in accordance with the law. Nwankwo was alive and had not withdrawn. The substitution of his name by the effect of the lower court’s order was therefore legally impermissible.

The Court further noted conflicting affidavits by Alaye Tremie Jnr. One affidavit stated that Ezeonwuka won the primary with 55 votes, while another supported Nwankwo’s claim that he won with 71 votes and that his name was submitted to INEC. Because one of the accounts was necessarily false, the Supreme Court directed the Inspector-General of Police to investigate whether perjury or another offence had been committed and, if appropriate, prosecute the responsible person.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the withdrawn appeal of the original PDP appellants but allowed Ben Nwankwo’s appeal. It set aside the judgments of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal as nullities, struck out the originating summons, and nullified the order for a re-run election. The Court directed INEC to issue Nwankwo a certificate of return, ordered Ezeonwuka to vacate the National Assembly seat, and directed him to refund salaries and allowances received in respect of the seat within 90 days. Costs of N500,000 were awarded to Nwankwo against Ezeonwuka. The related appeal concerning the re-run order was discountenanced because the order had already been set aside.

Significance

The decision reinforces the constitutional importance of fair hearing in pre-election litigation and confirms that all aspirants whose legal interests may be affected must be joined. It also reaffirms the limited scope of judicial intervention in political-party nominations: courts may address proven statutory or guideline violations, but they cannot ordinarily nominate or impose a candidate. Finally, the judgment underscores the binding effect of the Electoral Act’s restrictions on candidate substitution and stresses that electoral mandates must not be manipulated through conflicting records, procedural shortcuts or litigation designed to exclude affected candidates.