Notable Pronouncement

It must always be kept in mind that the intention of the legislature in enacting the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, as it relates to nomination of candidates for election is to do away with the hitherto prevalent practice of the political parties to do anything in the name of nomination and get away with it including substituting a candidate even after the election in question.

SHUAIBU LAU V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY [PDP] &

Now, the issue is whether the Court below was right that since the election of 28/3/16 had been held and the winner declared, the pre-election matter has become academic; but there is nothing outstanding or controversial about this issue, which is well-settled – See Eligwe v. Okpobiri (supra), wherein Okoro, JSC, observed that – There is no controversy that pre-election matters which are filed in the High Court before the holding of the Election can be heard up to the Supreme Court notwithstanding the holding of the election and declaration of results – – Even where the winner of the election has been sworn into office that does not make the pre-election matter to abate or become an academic exercise. Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) provides a widow of opportunity for aggrieved persons who participated in the primary election of parties to ventilate their grievances before the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory. I agree with the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent that matters arising from Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) fall within matters which can be appealed against to the Court of Appeal and even to this Court. See Sections 240 and 241 (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Thus, an appeal against a pre-election matter is constitutionally endowed. An appellant in the circumstance of the 1st Respondent should not be denied this right. In view of this, no Court of law has the jurisdiction to take away from or deny an Appellant his Constitutional right to appeal. The position is that if a candidate files his action before the election, the Federal High Court would have jurisdiction to continue with the hearing up to finality; but if the pre-election matter is filed after the election has taken place complaining about conduct of the primaries, such an action can only be heard by an Election Tribunal Wambai V. Donatus (supra).