pre- election matters – nomination, qualification, disqualification of candidates

The answer is a definite no. In electoral matters, the stakes are high, so high that in cases of disputed nomination or actual election, the parties can hardly agree on such innocuous issues of facts, even on such ordinarily simple matters as the time of day or day of the week. In such cases, the plaintiff or petitioner discovers to his dismay that his attempt to use a short course by filing an originating summons, would suddenly become the longest route. While it is true that time is of the essence in election petition matters, it is clear that where the matters are such as involve complicated and contentious facts in issue (which is invariably the case with election petition matters), the use of originating summons as the commencement process of such a matter will amount to a reverse bound route and waste of time.

Why is this so? Because where an originating process is filed and the respondent/defendant thereto disagrees on major grounds and issues of fact, the end result will be that both parties will have to bring their pleadings by writ and have to call witnesses and all the attendant processes and procedure of a full civil trial will apply and be observed. The truth of the matter is actually that the Electoral Act 2022 has clearly stated what form an election petition must take through the dictated contents in pleading the Grounds of challenging an election result. In the case of OLLEY V. TUNJI (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1362) 275 at 323, 328, the court held as follows; “It is now common to see two parties who are aspirants at a single political party primary election duly conducted by the party conducted by the political party concerned both claiming to be the winners of the same primary election… where such a claim is made, the courts hold the considered view that the proper procedure to be adopted in determining the dispute is that of a full trial involving pleadings” In the case of ATAGO V. AGWUCHE (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1341) 337 at 360 where the trial court in a pre-election matter did not order pleadings despite conflicts on the fact in issue in the matter commenced by originating summons, the appellate Court held thus; “It is on record that the affidavit in support of the appellant’s originating summons had been sufficiently challenged by the counter-affidavits. The trial court for this reason could not have exercised its discretion by forming an opinion of the basis of the conflicting affidavits evidence before it. There was certainly a need to call oral evidence. The justice of the case demanded that the trial court ought to have ordered for pleadings.

The aggrieved party or candidate at a concluded elections has 21 days to file his petition from the date of declaration of the election result. Any petition presented thereafter is statute barred and is helplessly ultra vires an election tribunal. Thus, the date on which the election results were declared becomes very vital in the computation of time to ascertain the timeliness, validity or otherwise of the petition presented. Therefore where the date of the declaration of results is in issue, the court has a duty to resolve it, as it is at the root of the entire petition tribunal process. The way to resolve this predicament is for the election petition tribunal to resort to INEC’s Form which is usually called “Declaration of Results of Election” form. The Form will clearly show the date upon which the election results were declared. The court or tribunal is then bound to accept and work with any date indicated on the Declaration of Results of Election Form as the correct date upon which the results of the election in dispute was declared. See IMERH V. OKON (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1311) 272 at 278-279.

Firstly, such political party must not later than 180 days before the date of the general election submit to INEC the list of candidates it so nominated or it intends to sponsor Secondly, such candidates must have emerged from the party’s validly organized primary elections. Thirdly, the list or candidate’s information submitted must be accompanied by a sworn Affidavit of Verification attesting to the veracity of the information so supplied at the Federal High Court or State High court or the High court of the Federal Capital Territory. INEC is further mandated to publish the names so submitted to it at the constituencies where the elections are to be conducted within seven days of receiving the information. See Section 29 (1)(2) (3) Electoral Act 2022.

Chief Ojenamuo needs not worry much as the process of withdrawal is simple, clear and straightforward. He is advised to withdraw his candidacy by simply making a notice in writing signed by him and delivered personally to his party who in turn will convey such withdrawal to INEC not later than 90 days to the election. See Section 31 Electoral Act 2022.

Not if the said ground or grounds are not part of what is specified and listed in Section 182 of the 1999 Constitution and other such relevant sections as Sections 65, 106, 131 or 177 of the Constitution. Political party membership is a requirement of the Constitution, but membership for a particular number of years which is not a Constitutional requirement cannot be imposed on members their political party’s constitution. That is unknown to law, and cannot disqualify an otherwise qualified election candidate. See OZIGBO V. PDP (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1200) 601 at 655

Information submitted to INEC in respect of nomination and selection of candidate as it relates to election are Public Documents in character, and any interested member of the public can apply for them to be made available to him/her. All the person needs to do is to apply and pay the prescribed fee, and he or she will be given them. Section 29 (4) Electoral Act 2022

Alhaji Yaro Mechau can no longer withdraw his nomination. A sponsored candidate cannot be so lightly withdrawn of substituted except where he dies, withdraws from the election or where the court holds his nomination to be invalid. Section 30 (4) (5) Electoral Act 2022.

Where a candidate knowingly allows himself to be nominated by more than one political party or in more than one constituency, his nomination becomes void. So, Chief Baba Ijebu would end up being candidate for none of them. Section 35 Electoral Act 2022.

Where the court determines that the information supplied by a candidate or it political party in the affidavit submitted is false, the court would disqualify such candidate and his/her political party from contesting that particular position in the general election, or, where the election had been conducted and won by that candidate and his/her party, the candidate shall be disqualified and the second best candidate in that election would be declared the winner where he or she meets the Constitutional requirements for that office. However such disqualification will only be possible where the falsehood relates to the Constitutional requirement of eligibility to contest the election. Section 29 (6) Electoral Act 2022

It is mandatory that a candidate for an election must be nominated in writing by such number of persons (as required by INEC) whose name appears on the voters register. However, such a nominator cannot nominate more than one aspirant for an election to a particular office. It appears therefore that Alhaji Yaro Mechau cannot nominate more than one person in this regards. Alhaji Yaro Mechau having nominated 3 persons for the same elective office has, on the face of the stated facts, committed an electoral offence and if prosecuted would be liable to conviction and a term of three months’ imprisonment or/and a fine of an N100,000.00 fine. But his unlawful conduct will not invalidate the nomination or in any way affect the candidates’ qualification for the election. See Section 30 (1)(2)(3) Electoral Act 2022.