Lawyers in the country have argued that last Tuesday’s judgment of a Federal High Court Abuja which sacked from office, Governor David Umahi of Ebonyi state, his deputy, Eric Igwe and 17 lawmakers of the State House of Assembly for dumping the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC, will benefit Nigeria in some ways.
Justice Inyang Ekwo of Federal High Court, Abuja on Tuesday ordered the removal of Governor Umahi and his deputy for defecting from the PDP which was the platform on which they were elected into office and asked Independent National Electoral Commission to issue Certificate of Return to nominees of the PDP as replacement or conduct a fresh election within 90 days.
The governor, his deputy as well as the state lawmakers have however filed an appeal against the judgment and asked for a stay of execution of the order.
Reacting to the judgment however, lawyers held divergent views but argued that it will bring positive development to the country.
Judgment will instill sanity among elected leaders
Aba -based legal practitioner and former Zonal Legal Adviser to the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Chief Ukpai Ukiro, argued that, “the major takeaway from the judgment is that it will help stop elected leaders from jumping from one party to another after winning elections.
The idea of turncoats winning election on the platform of a political party only to dump the same platform that brought them to power will stop. The judgment would help to strengthen democracy and instill sanity among elected leaders.
There have been several court pronouncements that held that elections are for the party & contestants are mere agents who cannot stop the principal from enjoying the benefits of his victory. How did Governor Umahi determine that those who voted him as PDP candidate wanted him to defect to the APC the time he did? He should not take the people for granted”
It will stem indiscriminate cross-carpeting
In a similar vein, another lawyer, Mr Dotun Fasanya submitted that “by several previous judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the party and not the candidates is the entity voted for when the electorates cast their votes. Therefore, the mandate rests with the party.
The candidates fielded by the party are just the symbol of the mandate. It is also a provision of the constitution that anyone holding an elective position cannot leave the party that elected him or her except he or she is able to prove that the party that elected him or her is having challenges capable of hampering his or her performance as such elected office holder. It is obvious from the above that the law has been clear on this issue, both at the common law and statutory perspectives.
This new judgment sounds strange and novel to us because the law had not been tested enough in this area. Politicians wake up at any time, defecting to other parties, even when the parties that gave them the mandate to serve is not facing any serious challenges. Such cases in the past were usually swept under the carpets, using political solutions to resolve them instead.
“The major implication of this judgment is its potency for stemming the indiscriminate cross-carpeting amongst elected office holders. Another implication is that party discipline will fare better with our political parties. Many other suits and judgments will be generated from this precedence. This will develop our law further and by extension our democracy will become stronger.
Judgment based on strong principles of law
In his own submissions, former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice of Akwa Ibom State, Mr. Uwemedimo Nwoko (SAN) contended that the judgment of the Federal High Court was rooted in the constitution stressing that it is the political party that is the duly recognised body that contest election and not party candidates or flagbearers.
His words, “The judgement of the Federal High Court Abuja, is actually based on very strong Principles of Law rooted in the constitution. And this position has been affirmed at several instances by Supreme Court of Nigeria. And I don’t know what is difficult to understand the fact that it is political parties that contest election. Candidate of a political party is only sponsored.
The word ‘Sponsored’ is in the constitution. For a person to contest election, the constitution says, the person must be sponsored by a political party. The Political party is the principal, while the candidate sponsored by that candidate is merely its Agent.
And at no point in time can an Agent surplant the principal and take over; it is not done morally or legally. Where a political party sponsors a candidate to contest election, the votes belong to & are domiciled in the party. The agent cannot now become the owner of those votes because it was sponsored by a political party.
During elections, INEC that conducts the election recognizes only the political party in the ballot papers. If you pick up a ballot paper today you will never see the name of any candidate, you will only see the name and the logo of the party, it is the party that contests election. When INEC is announcing results check through all videos of announcement of results, carry all election results and look at them, it is the political parties that are allotted the votes.
In the recent history in Kogi state, when Abubakar Audu died in the middle of an election, the Court said the votes that Audu had already gathered before he died belonged to the party, and those votes were accredited to the APC.
Even when PDP said no, cancel the election and re-conduct, the Court said no, we don’t need to cancel the election, the party that contested the election is still on ground, even though their agent has died, it doesn’t matter”.
He noted that in the case of Umahi , the PDP went to Court and said, “we are the owners of the votes, Ebonyi people gave us the votes, we are the owners of the mandate. This man was a mere flag bearer, he decided to leave us, he cannot go with our mandate, let him drop our mandate and leave on his own”
Party mere vehicle candidate ride to election Expressing a contrary opinion, a legal practitioner in Ado-Ekiti, Iyanu Olumuagun submitted that the Judgment of Inyang Ekwo cannot stand the test of constitutionalism of appellate court scrutiny.
According to Olumuagun, “Section 211 of the 1999 constitution as amended stated that a political party canvases for votes on behalf of the candidate, the political party is an agent of the candidate.
It is my view that the electoral act requires that parties do not contest, win or lose an election, they do so by the candidate they sponsored, and before a person can be elected as a Governor or deputy even to the position of a lawmaker, that person must have fully participated in all the stages of election starting from nomination to the actual voting.
I submit that a political party is merely a vehicle in which a candidate can ride to contest an election and nothing more. My humble submission is that the vote belongs to the candidate and not the political party.
The court of appeal in the case of NWANKO & ANOR V INEC& ORS (2019) held that it is trite that it is only a natural person that can be lawfully declared and returned as a winner of an election according to Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), it is the candidate of a party that owns the vote.
The judgment that sacked Governor David Umahi and his deputy Eric kelechi from their office prohibits the law of freedom of Association which is a constitutional right (section 40 of 1999 constitution as amended)
It was a further enforcement of Amaechi Vs Omehia decision
Mr Chikodi Igbokwe hailed the judgment and pointed out that: “It was a further enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision in Amaechi Vs Omehia case, in which the Apex Court held that the Constitution of Nigeria has no provision for independent candidature.”
Igbokwe insisted that it was only political parties that contest election. His words: “It is trite law that only political parties contest election. We could not have easily forgotten the recent Imo North senatorial election.
The APC, had no identifiable candidate for that election. The poll went on as planned and APC was declared winner. When eventually the internal crisis in APC was resolved in court, a candidate emerged and he was given a certificate of return.
