pre-election matters, nomination. qualification & disqualification of candidates

Mr Eruru’s planned timing strategy is wrong. His best option would be to seek redress immediately at the Federal High Court. The circumstance as presented is not one which falls within the competence of the Election Petition Tribunal as the matter is a Pre-election matter. He is advised to seek redress as soon as possible. Election Petition Tribunals are not mandated to handle matters of qualification, disqualification and substation that happen as pre-election nature. Chime V Onyia (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1124) 1 @ 72-73; ANPP v Usman (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100) 1 @ 55; Ibrahim v INEC (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) 334; Ucha v Onwe (2011) 4 NWLR (pt. 1237) 386 @ 427

A Party that violates the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Electoral Act, its Constitution and Guidelines exposes itself from the danger of not being allowed to field any candidate for the particular election concerned. See Section 84(13) of the Electoral Act, 2022. Where a member of a party who alleges that the Electoral Act or his Party’s Constitution and Guidelines were not followed for the purpose of nomination and selection of candidate and then seeks redress in court accordingly, has the claim for damages as remedy available to him. He or she cannot apply to the court to stop the holding of the primary election or the main election as the case may be pending the determination of the suit he filed. See **Section 84(13) (15) Electoral Act 2022; Tukur v Uba (2013) 4NWLR (pt. 1343) 90 @ 163 **

Pre-election matter instituted at the high court remains subsisting even after election. The fact that the election for which such pre-election matters originate has been concluded does not ipso facto deprive the Court of jurisdiction to continue to hear the case on the merit. This is the doctrine of lis pendens. Pre-election matter does not abate by mere fact that election has already been concluded. See Dan jumbo v Dan jumbo (1999) 11NWLR (Pt. 627)445; Wambai v Donatus (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223 @ 247-248, 262.

Yes, he can be charged, tried and convicted if found guilty as charged. Sections 114 – 129 of the Electoral Act, 2022 create various electoral and election day offences including those of improper use of voters’ cards, bribery and conspiracy, secrecy of voting, voting by unregistered persons, disorderly conduct at elections, influence, campaigning on election day, threatening of voters, etc. etc. The fact that anybody is campaigning for an elective position, whether the topmost one of presidency or the lowest position does not make that person immune from criminal proceeding. Nwachukwu v Eneogwe (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 600) 629 @ 636

For the purpose of pre-election matters, the jurisdiction lies with the Federal High Court and State High Court, both of which is one as their Jurisdiction is concurrent on pre-elections matters. The judgment of the Federal High Court in this regard cannot be appealed to the state High Court, neither can it be binding thereon.

Yes. Where a party challenges an election on the ground that the person returned as the winner of the election was at the time not qualified to contest the election, a pre-election issue has been raised. The nature of this issue notwithstanding, being about qualification which is an issue that follows candidates all through the electioneering processes, does not prevent the aggrieved party from ventilating same at the Election Petition Tribunal. Wambai v Donatus (2014) 14NWLR (Pt. 1427) 223 @ 247-248, 262

For Mr. Eruru to confidently challenge the action of the party, he must ensure that; There must have been a Primary Election for the selection or nomination of a candidate by a political party; That action he is complaining about resulted from that primary Election; That he, Mr. Eruru, the complainant, was an aspirant who had participated or ought to have participated in the primary election; That his political party did not comply with some specific provisions of the Electoral Act or its Rules. See **Section 84 Electoral Act 2022; Ukachukwu v PDP (2014) 17NWLR (pt. 1435) 134 @ 201-202 **

A. Pre-election matters are to be heard expeditiously and on the merit as it most of the time raises issues which affects or questions the competence of the main election. Similarly, the court cannot refuse to hear a pre-election matter as all such matters must be heard on the merit.** Ezeigwe v Nwawulu (2010) 4NWLR (Pt. 1183) 159 @ 206**

No. Any complaint regarding the injection of names by INEC into voters register is not a pre-election matter. Election is a process spanning a period of time and encompasses a series of actions including registration of voters to polling. Although the registration of voters usually comes months before the date of the actual election, such circumstance is however not enough to qualify same as one of pre-election nature. This is because such voters registration no matter when done can only be used on the date of the election which then makes any complaint thereto post-electoral. Such complaint will rightly be ventilated at the election petition tribunal. See Oke v Mimiko (No. 2) (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 332 @ 389.

The answer is yes. Where the crux of the complaint in a petition is the alleged invalidity of the nomination of the candidate who was declared winner, the ground alone cannot be cognizable under Section 134 of the Electoral Act, 2022. See** KOLAWOLE V. FOLUSHO (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1143) 338 at 388 paras E-F**.

Sections 33 and 34 Electoral Act 2022 lays down clear and unambiguous provisions for the withdrawal and substitution of candidates. These laws must as a matter of fact be adhered to strictly. Although the activities of political parties are not subject to external interference, nevertheless where it is alleged that the party has acted arbitrarily, external check becomes unassailable. Therefore Sections 33 and 34 Electoral Act 2022 are consistently under judicial surveillance and thus justiciable only at the instance of the person who alleged such wrong. Political Parties and INEC are enjoined at all times to not be judges in their own case. See Ararume v INEC (2007) 9NWLR (Pt. 1038) 127 @ 157

No. Where a political party fails to comply with the Electoral Act or its guideline for the purpose of nominating or selecting a candidate, INEC is empowered as a matter of fact to reject any such candidate arbitrarily nominated by the party. Thus any candidate so arbitrarily nominated will not be included by INEC on the ballot in the main election in respect of the position for which such person was arbitrarily nominated or selected. See Section 84(13) Electoral Act 2022.