Chief Cyprian Chukwu & Anor V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C.

The above two consolidated appeals arose from the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division in appeal No: CA/A/299M/2011 in which the Court of Appeal, now court below, granted the application filed by the 4th respondent in SC.111/2012 for leave to appeal as an interested party against the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/656/2010.

I think the facts and circumstances leading to the consolidated appeals are quite brief and interesting devoid of any complication. It is like this. By an originating summons in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/656/2010, appellant in SC.111/2012 but 2nd respondent in SC.336/2012, as plaintiff, sued the appellant in SC.336/2012; Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the proceedings seeking interpretation of the judgment of this court in Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) page 227, for the following reliefs.

“(a) A declaration that in the eyes of the law and as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1080) page 227 @ pages 318 – 319 the 2nd defendant is the person who has been in office as the duly elected governor of Rivers State of Nigeria since 29th May, 2010 pursuant to the gubernatorial election conducted by the 1st defendant on 14th April, 2007 in which the 2nd defendant being the lawfully sponsored candidate of 3rd defendant was returned as the winner of the gubernatorial election.

(b) A declaration that the 2nd defendant whose term of office expires on the 28th May, 2011 cannot remain in office after the 28th May, 2011, save upon having contested and won a fresh election of a second term of four years commencing with effect from 29th May, 2011 in accordance with section 180 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

(c) A declaration that the 3rd defendant is bound to schedule and conduct primary election to choose its gubernatorial candidate for Rivers State in accordance with section 87(1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 and the Extant INEC Guideline, at the same time with this conduct of primary elections to choose candidates of the 3rd defendant who will contest on it’s platform in all other States of the Federation where the tenure of office of current incumbent governor will expire by law on 28th day of May, 2011.

(d) An Order compelling the 3rd defendant to schedule and conduct primary election to choose its gubernatorial candidate for Rivers State at the same time with the conduct of primary elections to choose candidates of the 3rd defendant who will contest on its platform in all other States of the Federation where the terms of office of current incumbent governors will expire by law on 28th May, 2011

(e) An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to conduct gubernatorial election in Rivers State on the same date and at the same time when governorship elections are scheduled to be held for the purpose of electing successors to the office of governors in all other States of the Federation whose current term will expire on 28th May, 2011.”

Judgment in this matter was delivered on 7th October 2010 by the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court per Abdul Kafarati, J herein after called trial court. He held that “In view of the analysis of Amaechi v. INEC and Ladoja v. INEC cases, I resolve question 1, 2, 3 and 6 in the affirmative and questions 4 and 5 in the negative.”

The trial court consequently granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff therein, which culminated in the conduct of a Fresh Governorship election in Rivers State in April, 2011.

The 1st respondent in Appeal No.SC.336/2012 Celestine Omehia – then brought an application before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal seeking, inter alia, leave to appeal against the ruling of the trial Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/656/2010 as an interested party. In its ruling delivered on 20th December, 2010 the Court of Appeal, therein after called the lower Court, granted leave to the 1st respondent to appeal as an interested party. As the record shows, the appellant vehemently opposed same.

It is against the above ruling of the lower Court that the appellants in SC.111/2012 and SC.336/2012 now appealed to the Supreme Court pursuant to leave granted by this court on 15th June 2012.

That being the case the appeals both in SC.111/2012 and SC. 336/2012 arose from the same ruling of the court below and the grounds appear similar except with minor difference. This was what actually led to this court consolidating the two appeals.

Let me start with the issue formulated by the appellant in appeal No.SC.111/2012 thus:-