By Chukwuemeka Obi Ginikanwa

Opposition figures in the

All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have alluded that Peter Obi is not a valid member of the Labour Party (LP), hence, he is not a valid presidential candidate of the party. The sentiment of the opposition parties is the subject of the lawsuit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1743/2022, filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) at the Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja. The suit lists the

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), LP and Mr. Peter Obi as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively.

The plaintiff alleges that Mr. Obi’s candidacy contravenes Section 131 (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (the Constitution), Sections 29 (1), 77 (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022. The plaintiff sought an injunction restraining INEC from acting on, according recognition to, giving effect to, or in any way or manner, dealing with Mr. Obi as the candidate of LP in the forthcoming 2023 presidential election. The suit was dismissed by the FHC on November 30, 2022 for failure of the plaintiff to provide enough evidence to support its prayers. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff approached the Court of Appeal sitting at Abuja and filed suit CA/ABJ/CV/1414/2022 wherein the defendants in the suit at the FHC were listed in the same order as respondents at the Court of Appeal. On February 8, 2023, the appellate court refused the appeal on the grounds that the appellant lacks locus standi. The Court went further to award cost in the aggregate sum of ₦400,000 against the appellant.

Apart from the fact that APM could still appeal to the Supreme Court, they could easily solve the problem of locus standi by engaging a member of Labour Party to file the suit de novo at the Federal High Court or join the person as a party in the suit at the Supreme Court. In the event that happens, the question will be whether the suit should succeed.

131 (c) of the Constitution provides that a person shall qualify for election to the office of the president if he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party. S. 29 (1) of the EA provides that parties shall, not later than 180 days before the date fixed for general elections submit to INEC the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party. S. 77 (2) provides that a political party shall maintain a register of its members in both hard and soft copy. S. 72 (3) provides that each political party shall make such register available to INEC not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses or convention. APM’s contention is not that LP failed to comply with S. 29 (1) per se but that considering that S. 77(3) of the EA requires political parties to make their registers available to INEC not later than 30 days before their primaries, Mr. Obi could not have been on the register as a member of Labour Party. This is because Mr. Obi resigned from PDP by a letter dated 20th May 2022 and conveyed to PDP’s chairman for Agulu Ward 2 in Anaocha Local Government, Anambra State and Labour Party conducted its presidential primaries on 30th May 2022.

The law is that any conduct that must be sanctioned must be expressly stated in a written law to wit: an Act by the National Assembly or a Law by a State House of Assembly. That is what Section 36(12) of the Constitution provides. Such conduct should not be left to conjecture. As well, it cannot be inferred by the Court. See Chief Olabode George v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) LPELR-21895(SC). Now, Section 77 or indeed, any part of the Electoral Act does not provide any sanction for the failure of a party to make its register available to INEC in violation of the Section 77 (3). The draftsperson of the Electoral Act surely knows what it is to create an offence and provide sanctions as they clearly did so in the ensuing Section 78 and other sections that clearly stipulated what constitutes an offence and the attendant penalty in the Act. So, assuming Labour Party did not submit its register, it cannot be said to have committed any offence that could lawfully attract disqualification of its presidential candidate.

Furthermore, assuming Labour Party did make available its register to INEC in accordance with Section 77 (3), the Electoral Act did not preclude it from, after submission of the said register, admitting more members into the party. Additionally, Section 29 (1) of the EA or any other section of the Act does not state that for a candidate of a political party to be considered valid, the person’s name must be in the register deposited with INEC.

Conclusively and without further ado, Mr. Peter Obi is the valid presidential candidate of the Labour Party as he satisfied all the requirements of the law as provided in the Constitution and the Electoral Act. Thus, it is our humble and informed opinion that

any court that may hear a suit on these facts or if the Supreme Court, if presented with the opportunity of hearing an appeal on this issue by APM, should so hold.

In this article