Background
This case arose from a dispute regarding the nomination of presidential candidates within the Social Democratic Party (SDP) for the 2019 election. Professor Jerry Gana, a prominent member of the SDP, contested the party's decision to nominate Donald Duke, asserting that Duke's candidacy violated the party's zoning arrangements as articulated in their amended constitution which emphasized rotation of political offices between regions.
Issues
The key issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the SDP was bound by its own amended constitution when conducting the Presidential Primary election.
- What was the correct interpretation of Article 15.3(i) & (ii)(a) of the SDP constitution regarding the principle of zoning?
- Whether the provision in the SDP constitution conflicted with the Nigerian Constitution regarding discrimination and qualification for candidacy.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that:
- The amended constitution of the SDP was operational as of the date of its ratification notwithstanding the requirement for registration with the electoral commission.
- Article 15.3 did not prohibit individuals from the same geographical zone as the National Chairman from contesting for candidacy, thus Donald Duke was eligible to run.
- The dispute concerning the party's internal nominations was non-justiciable as per Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, unless there was a breach of statutory provisions or the party's own guidelines.
Court Findings
The court found that:
- The term "zoning" within the SDP constitution was meant to facilitate inclusivity and participation among diverse geographical regions, not to impose blanket disqualifications.
- Professor Gana had participated in the elections and signed an undertaking to support any candidate who emerged from the primaries, which estopped him from contesting the outcome.
- There was no evidence that the designated zones had been clearly defined prior to the elections, undermining Gana's assertions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal by Professor Gana was without merit. The ruling of the Court of Appeal, which validated Duke's candidacy, was upheld, reinforcing the idea that political parties have the internal authority to determine their own candidate selection processes.
Significance
This case is significant for its reaffirmation of the autonomy of political parties in Nigeria regarding candidate nominations while also highlighting the importance of adherence to internal party regulations and agreements. It sets a precedent concerning the interpretation of party constitutions in relation to broader electoral laws and underscores the limits of judicial intervention in internal party affairs.