14112022

How breach of pre-election practice direction
and Electoral Act threaten 2023 elections
Continued from page 14
various constituencies and
received reports of such
exercise.”
Now, the clincher: Okoye
asserted, ”In relation to the
primaries for Akwa Ibom North
West and Yobe North
Senatorial Districts, the
Commission stands by
t h e monitoring
reports received from our
State offices. For this reason,
the Commission did not
publish the personal
particulars of any candidate
for the two constituencies at
variance with the State
reports. Right now, the
Commission is funtus officio
in the two cases….”
He then advised that
aggrieved parties are at
liberty to approach the court
and seek redress.
But has INEC honoured the
provisions of the law and its
own public commitment?
Although Okoye was to later
declare on national television
that the Commission is not
bound by reports from the
state, a position which
contradicted his press
statement, he was to clarify
that between the intervening
period of the reports and the
issuance of a court order, the
Commission is bound to obey
the court at any instant time
as a responsible institution
guided by law.
Yet, another national
commissioner, Mohammed
Haruna, is of the view that
INEC does not have the
powers to reject candidates.
But Section 84(13) states
clearly that “Where a political
party fails to comply with the
provisions of this Act in the
conduct of its primaries, its
candidate for election shall
not be included in the election
for the particular position in
issue”. This provision confers
on INEC powers of
admissibility or denial of a
candidate if the provisions of
the Act are followed or if the
provisions of the Act are not
followed, respectively.
Why the plethora of
pre-election
litigations?
There appears not to be a
systemic clarity on the
application of the letters of the
Electoral Act 2022 either by
error of ommission or
commission.
Whereas Professor
Mahmood Yakubu, the
National Chairman of INEC
has consistently made the
case that the election
management body will
continue to do its best to give
Nigerians an election not only
free, fair and credible next
year, but one that is also seen
to espouse the virtues of a
free, fair and credible
election. This is also a
sentiment President
Muhammadu Buhari echoed,
after signing the Electoral Act
2022, into law.
However, its policy
of jettisoning the reports from
• Festus Okoye, National Commissioner
and Chairman, Information
and Voter Education Committee
its RECs about the party
primaries monitored in some
states of the federation, seems
to cradle muddle.
Some of the pre-election
litigations that Chairman of
INEC complained about arose
from the Commission not
following through on its own
commitment. Indeed, while
some politicians who have a
very unhealthy relationship
with decency continue to
appease crookedness as a
deity, INEC’s seeming
irresoluteness and
The implication
is that if a
candidate
proposed by any
political party
emerges from a
primary that is
not deemed valid,
such a candidate
cannot and must
not be allowed to
stand for any
election. Now,
the question is,
what makes a
primary valid
complaisance, in some
instances, have not been
helpful.
Take, for instance, the raging
controversy in the Akwa Ibom
chapter of the All Progressives
Congress, APC, and INEC’s
acceptance of list of
candidates for election in the
state.
The state has a 26-member
House of Assembly chamber.
Vanguard has been made to
understand from the national
headquarters of INEC that of
the 26 primaries held to
determine the APC
candidates, the report of the
monitored primaries sent to
Abuja, only the names of two
of those who emerged from
the 26 primaries are among
the final 26 candidates
published by INEC for the
APC. By implication, the 24
candidates who emerged
from
the valid
primaries monitored by
INEC are potential litigants
to reclaim their mandate as
candidates. By the same
token, there are 10 House of
Representative seats in the
state. Of the 10 valid
primaries for the House of
Representatives conducted by
the APC and monitored by
INEC in Akwa Ibom State,
only two of the 10 names
are published as candidates.
This also throws up another
eight potential litigants who
would want their rights
restored as validly nominated
candidates.
For the senatorial primaries
in the state, specifically the
Akwa Ibom North West
senatorial candidacy, the
burden of correctness hangs
over INEC.
According to the report sent
to INEC headquarters and
sighted in Abuja
by Vanguard, only two
Vanguard, MONDAY NOVEMBER 14, 2022 — 15
senatorial primaries were
conducted. Akwa Ibom North
West has become so
controversial and is already
one of the over 600 litigations
about party primaries.
From Akwa Ibom State
alone, the number of potential
litigations regarding preelection
matters, barring
horse-trading steeped in
possible arm-twisting,
blackmail and intimidation,
may not be less than 35.
Those going to court,
curiously, are those deemded
to have participated in
the valid primaries
monitored by INEC.
Pre-election
Practice Direction
In order to strengthen the
process leading up to the 2023
general elections, the Chief
Judge of the Federal High
Court, Honourable Justice
John Terhemba Tsoho, in his
wisdom, on Tuesday, June 28,
2022, set the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, Federal High
Court of Nigeria (preelection)
Practice Direction,
2022.
This Practice Direction is
meant to serve as a guide to
potential litigants and judges
on certain rules to be
observed in handling preelection
matters as defined by
Section 285(14) of the
Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as
amended).
The Practice Direction has
11 Rules viz:
1. Objectives and Guiding
Principles
2. Applicability
3. Parties
Okoye was to
clarify that
between the
intervening period
of the reports and
the issuance of a
court order, the
Commission is
bound to obey the
court at any
instant time as a
responsible
institution guided
by law
4. Filing of Process
5. Service of Process
6. Hearing
7. Interlocutory
Applications
8. Miscellaneous
9. Interpretation
10. Citation
11 . Commencement
Rule 1, which deals with
Objectives and Guiding
Principles of the Preactice
Direction gives an overview of
the intendment of the rule:
OBJECTIVES
AND GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
1.-(1) The purpose of this
Practice Directions is to-
(a) provide for a fair,
impartial and expeditious
determination of preelection
cases;
(b) ensure that in all
election matters, the parties
focus on matters which are
genuinely in issue;
(c) minimize the time spent
in dealing with interlocutory
matters;
(d) ensure that the
possibility of settlement is
explored before the parties
go into hearing;
(e) minimize undue
adjournments and delays in
the conduct of matters.
Rule 3 deals with parties to
any suite and all of them must
be served:
PARTIES
3. A party challenging
the conduct or outcome
of a Primary Election shall
join as a Respondent in the
suit, the person who emerged
winner of the said
election or whose name
was forwarded by his political
party to the Independent
National Electoral
Commission (INEC).
Rule 4(2)(d) insists that
litigants must swear to an
affidavit that any matter being
brought before any court is
not already being heard by
another court:
FILING OF
PROCESSES
4. -(1 )Every pre-election
matter shall be
commenced by an
Originating Summons as
specified in Forms 3, 4
or 5 of Appendix 6 to
the Federal High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, with
such variations as
circumstances may require.
(2) The Originating
Summons shall be
accompanied by:
(d) an affidavit of nonmultiplicity
of action on the
same subject matter.
The rules above are alreay
being flouted such that
litigations are being brought
before the court and identified
parties in the suite as spelt out
in Rule 3 are not being made
aware.
Similarly, the principle of
non-multiplicity of action is
being observed in the breach
rather than observance.
NEXT WEEK: The full
rules of the Practice
Direction will be
published along with
particulars of breach and
the consequences for the
2023 general elections