Federal Lawmakers from Anambra state have asked the Independent National
Electoral Commission, INEC, not to withdraw their certificate of returns
issued to them after their elections.
The Lawmakers in a letter to INEC through their lawyer, Arthur Obi Okafor,
SAN said the Supreme Court ruling have not nullified their elections as
have been interpreted.
The letter reads:
The Chairman,
Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC)
Zambezi Crescent
Maitama District,
Abuja
Dear Sir,
THE STATUS OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
RE: JUDGMENT IN SC. 37/2015
We act as Solicitors and Counsel for and on behalf of the undermentioned
persons whom we shall hereinafter refer to as our client namely:-
SENATOR STELLA ODUAH
SENATOR ANDY UBA
HON. LYNDA CHUBA IKPEAZU
HON. ANAYO NNEBE
HON. TONY NWOYE OKECHUKWU
HON. CHRIS AZUBOGU
HON. CHUKWUKA C. ONYEMA
HON. OBINNA CHIDOKA
HON. EUCHARIA AZODO
Our clients are members of the National Assembly representing two (2)
Senatorial Districts of Anambra State and seven (7) Federal Constituencies
within
Anambra State. Our clients were duly nominated by the National Executive
of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the 2015 General Election and
they contested the Election and were duly returned as elected. They were
subsequently issued with their respective Certificates of Return and have
since been performing the duties for which they were elected by their
respective constituents before the election and during the nomination
process, the National Executive duly forwarded our clients’ names which
the Commission duly received. Thereafter owing to some shenanigans by some
staff of the Commission whom our clients believed were working for a
self-styled State Executive Committee which were determined against the
serene and settled position of the law to sponsor candidates for the
Peoples Democratic party (PDP), our clients’ names were relegated. This
created a situation whereby the legal department of the Commission
commenced playing a “musical chair” with list of candidates of the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) when they were fully aware that the only authority
that is competent to forward names of candidates is the National Executive
Committee by virtue of correspondence signed by its National Chairman and
Secretary. In two (2) remarkable pronouncements, the Supreme Court of
Nigeria eloquently held that no list other than that forwarded by the
National Executive of the PeoplesDemocratic 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 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 primaries conducted on the 8th
of January, 2011 was conducted by the National Executive Committee of the
PDP, and 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”.
4.03​In EMENIKE v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Part 1315) 556 at 594 Para H,
the Supreme Court in interpreting a 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. Further 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”.
Also the Apex Court in SC.4/2014, SC.7/2014 and SC.752/2013: YAR’ADUA &
ORS v. YANDOMA & ORS delivered on 19th December, 2014 per Mary
UkaegoPeter-Odili JSC at page 34 held thus:
“At the root of these decisions cited above is the fact that must be
ingrained well in mind of the court and litigants that who becomes the
candidate of a political party is an issue to be solely determined by that
political party and well in its domestic realm and not for the
interference of any agency or the court. In that wise, since all the
political parties are National, it is its National Executive Committee or
delegates therefrom who can validly conduct a primary election or conduct
a process through which the particular political party is to bring forth
its candidate and no other arm of that party including a state organ of
that party. That was the gravamen of the case GARBA YAKUBU LADO & ORS. V.
CPC & ORS (2012) All FWLR (Part 607) 623 and which the Supreme Court
declined jurisdiction and also decided that neither the Court of Appeal
nor the trial High Court had jurisdiction”.
It was therefore odd for the Legal Department of the Commission to have
ill advised the Commission to purport to accept the list forwarded by a
self-styled State Executive, while disregarding the list already domiciled
with the Commission and forwarded by the National Executive of the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP). By so doing, the Commission purported to have
acted pursuant to what was said to be an Order of Court made by the
Federal High Court Abuja Division in FHC/ABJ/CS/854/2014.
Your Honour, a perusal of the Order made in the said proceedings will not
disclose any place where the Federal High Court Ordered the Commission to
accept a list of Candidates forwarded by a State Chapter of the
PeoplesDemocratic Party (PDP). That would have been a total impertinence
if not rascality as every High Court is duty bound to obey the established
principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Thus, with
or without an Order of Court, on no account would the legal department or
any other authority advise the Commission to accept a list forwarded by a
self-styled State Executive.
It is also on record that our Client appealed the decision of the Federal
High Court to the Court of Appeal which set aside the decision. Upon an
appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court on 29th January, 2016
allowed the appeal.
This appeal has now excited some attention and has been subjected to
blatant and crude misinterpretations which have necessitated this
correspondence. This correspondence is aimed at setting the record
straight so that your good self will not again be misled by your legal
department into unjustifiably occasioning an unnecessary confusion in the
process. The judgment under reference is SC. 37 /2015: CHIEF EJIKE
OGUEBEGO & ANOR v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS.
May I draw your attention to the most pertinent segment of the Judgment
for the purpose of the status of the legislators sponsored by the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) at pages 46, 47 and 48 of the Judgment where their
lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“The Court below, however, veered from the course set by the trial court
and took the matter to another level which clearly failed to take into
consideration the main issue before the trial court. On page 1291 of
Volume 3 of the record of appeal the Court of Appeal held as follows:-
“It is established beyond peradventure that it is the National Executive
Committee of the appellant which has the power to conduct a valid primary
for the nomination or selection of candidates for a general election. See
EMEKA V. OKADIGBOsupra and EMENIKE v. PDP supra. Reliefs 3, 5 and 6 were
predicated on the possibility of congress and primary being conducted by
the caretaker committee set up by the appellant. There was no evidence to
back this up. Exhibit D at page 32 of Volume 1 of the record (the letter
of PDP appointing the South East Executive to oversee the affairs of the
Anambra State Chapter “until congresses are held”) does not suggest that
the congresses were to be held by the South East Zonal Executive.”
I hold the view that the Court below misconceived the real issue in
controversy at the trial Court which gave birth to the appeal before it.
There was no controversy as to which organ of the 1st Respondent (PDP) has
power to conduct primaries. I can say it for the umpteenth time that the
main issue was that stated by the learned trial judge. That is, whether
the 1st Respondent can ignore the subsisting order of Court and set up a
caretaker committee for Anambra State PDP in brazen contempt of the Court.
Period. Other issues that were thrown up were just to garnish the issue.
Therefore, the Court below having left the main issues in controversy and
be persuaded to dwell on the issues as to which organ of PDP has power to
conduct primary, went on a frolic and cannot be allowed to stand.
Accordingly, I hold that there was no feature in the case submitted by the
Appellants that warranted the court below to apply the cases of OKADIGBO
v. EMEKA & Ors (Supra) and EMENIKE v. PDP (supra). The two authorities
decided on which organ of a Political Party has power to conduct
primaries. This is not the issue in this case. Thus, this issue is yet
again resolved in favour of the Appellants.”
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). They did not equally authorize the Commission to
substitute our clients with the individuals whose names were on the list
improperly allowed by the Commission in obvious disregard of the series of
judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to the effect that it is only
the National Executive of the party that has the vires to sponsor
candidates.
The Supreme Court could not have for after all, the same Court in a sister
appeal- SC.29/2015 ODEDOv P.D.P (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt 1476) 229 at 266-267
(para H-D) with respect to one of the said state sponsored candidates
arising from the same Federal High Court judgment held thus-
“Suffice it to say it is the National Executive of the PDP that is imbued
with the responsibility for the conduct of the party’s National Assembly
Primaries. Any purported attempt to conduct such primary by the State
Chapter of the PDP cannot be validly characterized as competent. The act
is totally illegal and will confer no right as it is a nullity and also
constituting an abuse of court process.
It is interesting, I must say that the case under consideration like Emeka
& Okadigbo originates also from the same Anambra State. This is worrisome
as it gives a clear indication that the State Executive Committee of the
party appears not to know their limit and hence the continued persistence
in usurping of power not due to them. This is inspite of the pronouncement
made by this Court and its orders. The practice is a flagrant abuse of
power and the national body will do well and draw the attention of the
erring state committee thereto. Judgments of court are to be obeyed and
serve a guide for now and the future”.
It must be noted that as far as our clients are concerned, the restoration
of their names as candidates was not pursuant to the Court of Appeal
decision setting aside the decision of the Federal High Court. The
Judgment was perhaps a wake-up call. What the Commission did by restoring
the names of our clients as candidates was simply to adhere to the settled
principles of law to the effect that it is only the National Executive
that possessed the vires to nominate candidates for election. The Supreme
Court of Nigeria was equally emphatic that the case which eventually got
to the Court and on which they delivered the judgment now sought to be
misinterpreted, had nothing to do with nomination of candidates by a body
other than the National Executive of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP),
that matter having been fully settled by numerous, previous decisions of
the Court.
In recognition of the fact that the matter does not involve sponsorship of
candidates for the PeoplesDemocratic Party, all the candidates illegally
sponsored by the said Oguebego led State Executive Committee of the
Peoples Democratic Partyinstituted Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/177/2015: SENATOR
ANNIE CLEMENT OKONKWO & 43 ORS v. INEC & ORS in which they are seeking a
restoration of their names as the candidates of the Party. The said suit
is still pending and is also the subject of interlocutory appeal at the
Court of Appeal in CA/A/313/2015.
Having regard to the foregoing, we urge you to resist the machinations of
those who are ill motivated and bent on causing confusion in the system.
If you find that our clients were nominated by the National Executive of
the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which is the case, then in the absence
of a Court Order, there will be no compulsion or justification on your
part to interfere with the mandate vested in our clients by the PDP and
the electorate.
Please find attached the said judgment of the Supreme Court in SC.37/2015
and the Originating Summons instituted at the Federal High Court as
FHC/ABJ/CS/177/2015: SENATOR ANNIE CLEMENT OKONKWO & 43 ORS v. INEC & ORS
which is still pending.
May we anticipate your mature and detached approach to this matter so as
to ensure that justice, equity and good conscience are maintained.
Thank you for your co-operation.
Yours faithfully,
____________________
ARTHUR OBI OKAFOR (SAN)