Background
This significant case involves the appeal of four appellants—Bala Sanga and three senators—against the All Progressive Congress (APC) regarding the conduct of its primary elections for the Adamawa South Senatorial District. The appellants alleged irregularities during the primary elections held on May 28 and 29, 2022, specifically citing vote buying, fraudulent accreditation, and disenfranchisement of participants.
Issues
The appeal raised two primary issues for resolution:
- Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial court's decision not to nullify the primary election despite acknowledging non-compliance with the electoral guidelines.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in affirming that the appellants failed to substantiate their allegations of vote-buying and other electoral irregularities.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court determined that the concurrent findings of fact from the lower courts were binding and could not be overturned because the appellants did not appeal these findings directly. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over appeals concerning the findings of fact is very limited.
Court Findings
The court held that:
- Since the appellants did not challenge the factual findings of the trial court, these findings were accepted as correct and conclusive.
- Despite the trial court's acknowledgment of non-compliance with some electoral guidelines, it did not warrant nullifying the primary election because such non-compliance did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice affecting the election outcome.
- The allegations of vote buying and disenfranchisement were not substantiated with credible evidence; thus, complaints about these issues were found to be unmeritorious.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the findings of the trial court. It found that the primary election was valid despite the noted irregularities, as they did not substantially affect the election's integrity.
Significance
This judgment underscores the principle that issues related to primary elections must be thoroughly substantiated to warrant legal intervention. It also highlights the limitations of the Supreme Court's ability to overturn factual findings made by lower courts, reinforcing the legal stance that established facts remain binding unless directly appealed and successfully challenged.