• ‘INEC May Seek Definite Interpretation’

DECISIONS by the Supreme Court are supposed to be final and binding on all parties in any legal tussle, and yesterday’s ruling by the apex court shouldn’t be an exception. There are indications, however, that the dust may not have settled over the pronouncement that sacked three senators and 11 members of the House of Representatives representing Anambra State in the National Assembly.

The senators are: Andy Uba (Anambra South) Stella Oduah (Anambra North) and Uche Ekwunife (Anambra Central). The House of Representatives members include Comrade Tony Nwoye (Anambra East/West); Anayo Nnebe (Awka); Obinna Chidoka (Idemili); Lynda Ikpeazu (Onitsha North/ South); Emeka Anohu (Ihiala); Eucharia Azodo (Aguata); Chris Azubogu(Nnewi); and Chukwuka Onyema (Ogbaru).

According to a letter written to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the affected lawmakers said the judgment does not impair the validity of their elections.

Citing two judgments of the Court to support his argument, representative of the lawmakers, Chief Arthur Okafor (SAN), said the lawmakers were not removed by the judgment.

But a lawyer, Mr. Rafiu Bello, who said he hasn’t seen a certified copy of the Supreme Court decision, which could enable him make considered opinion, expressed the view that parties uncertain about the decision are at liberty to approach the Supreme Court for definite interpretation of the decision.

“What I expect INEC to do is approach the Supreme Court to ask for definite interpretation of the ruling in respect of the election of the lawmakers. That’s the proper thing to do, rather than the parties speculating and interpreting things their own ways. If I see a copy of the judgment, my opinion will be better informed. But what is clear is that there are whole lots of speculations about the decision right now,” he said.

Constitutional lawyer, Sebastian Hon, said even though he is not well informed about the decision, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter recognised by the constitution. He, therefore, advised parties to accept the decision as it affects them.

He said: “When parties dispute in a democracy and the matter gets to the Supreme Court, when they make a pronouncement, that is the end. So, it has happened. Those who are sacked can wait for another time.”

According to former Chairman of the Lagos branch of the Nigeria Bar Association, Abiodun Dabiri, the illegal faction submitted names of those who never conducted lawful primaries. According to him, there is no basis for rerun because the faction that had legal primaries, whose names were substituted, would automatically take over, as pronounced by the Supreme Court.

On his part, Lagos-based lawyer, Yomi Okunnu, said the Supreme Court was right to nullify the election of the lawmakers.

“My view is that the Supreme Court is right,” he said, “in the sense that the nomination and election of the candidates were illegal. It was supposed to be party congress that you have primaries, but in this case, some factions put up those candidates. They were candidates of the factional party and not that of members. I believe that the decision of the Supreme Court is clear enough. So, I support it. Those who conducted the proper congress will replace them. If their congress is unlawful, the offshoot will also be,” he said.

Former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Rivers State, Worgu Boms, declined to comment, saying he has not read the judgment, a view shared by human rights lawyer, Wahab Shittu.

Chief Arthur Okafor argued: “In two remarkable pronouncements, the Supreme Court of Nigeria eloquently held that no list other than that forwarded by the National Executive of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) shall be countenanced by the Commission.

“In EMEKA v. OKADIGBO (2012) 18 NWLR (Part 1331) 55 at 87 Paras H-C, the court held thus: ‘A diligent reading of the above reveals that it is the National Executive Committee of the PDP that is responsible for the conduct of the party’s National Assembly primaries’.”

“The Court of Appeal,” he noted: “was correct, there can only be one valid primary and that is the primaries conducted by the National Executive Committee. A primary conducted by the state chapter of the PDP is not a primary. It is an illegal contraption that carries with it no rights. It is a complete nullity.”
The lawyer disclosed that the primaries conducted on the 8th of January 2011 was conducted by the National Executive Committee of the PDP, saying it was the only authentic primaries conducted by the PDP to choose its candidate for the Anambra North Senatorial Seat.

“On the other hand, the purported primaries conducted on the 10th or 12th of January, 2011 were conducted by the state chapter of the PDP. It is null and void for the purpose of choosing the PDP’s candidate for the senatorial elections. It is clear that at no time were two parallel primaries conducted,” he said.

While citing ‎the case of EMENIKE v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Part 1315) 556 at 594 Para H, he said the Supreme Court in interpreting that similar provision, “was emphatic that the PDP primaries conducted by the Abia State Executive Committee of PDP was illegal, as it was not empowered to conduct primary election and that being the case, the respondent who emerged from the said primary was not properly elected.”

He further stated that at page 602 para H, the Supreme Court settled the position thus:

“It must be elementary now that the only valid primary is the one conducted by the National Executive Committee of the PDP. The primary which the Appellant participated in was illegal, it having been conducted by the State Executive of the PDP.”

He remarked that the National Executive of the PDP, duly nominated all of the affected lawmakers for the 2015 General Election, adding that they contested the election and were duly returned as elected.

He added: “The Supreme Court did not order the withdrawal of the Certificates of Return issued by the Commission to our clients. They did not hold that the faction of the PDP had the right to sponsor candidates for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).”

According to Okafor, the court did not equally authorise the commission to substitute the lawmakers with the individuals whose names were on the list improperly allowed by INEC in obvious disregard of the series of judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, to the effect that it was only the National Executive of the party that has the vires to sponsor candidates.