Illustrating With Extant Legal Authorities How The Adamu Muazu Scenario (1999) Stands Poles Apart From The Bayesla Case (2020) By Sylvester Udemezue

PART ONE:
Applying Relevant Legal Authorities
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
BAYELSA IS A PRE-ELECTION MATTER:
1⃣section 137 (1)(j) of the of the CFRN, 1999, as amended: provides that the qualification of a candidate in an election may be challenged on grounds that the candidate has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission”

2⃣Section 31 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended: “A person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the High Court of a State or Federal High Court against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.”

NOTE: here you’re NOT questioning the election; you’re questioning only the CANDIDATE. So if you succeed in proving your case, the effect is that the CANDIDATURE (not the election) would be nullified. *

4⃣Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN), as amended,* provides: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit.”

4⃣ORDER THE COURT MUST MAKE:
Section 31(6) of the Electoral Act provides:
“If the Court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false, the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election.”

5⃣Effect Of The Disqualification pf Deputy Governor at that stage: Section 187(1) 1999 Constitution provides: “In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this Chapter relate a candidate for the office of Governor of a State shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of Governor, who is to occupy the office of Deputy Governor; and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of Deputy Governor if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as Governor in accordance with the said provisions.”

*6⃣See Why substitution or replacement of the disqualified Deputy Governor Was Impossible As At The Time of the FHC and Supreme Court Judgment:*section 31 (1) Electoral Act 2010 provides that “every political party shall not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election under the provisions of this Act, submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections.” Section 33 of the Electoral Act, as amended then provides: “a political party shall not be allowed to change or substitute its candidate whose name has been submitted pursuant to section 32 of this Act, except in the case of death or withdrawal by the candidate.” The effect of the foregoing is that, once a political party has nominated and submitted the name of its candidate, the political party is not permitted under any circumstances (save in the case of death or voluntary withdrawal by the candidate) to change or substitute its candidate for any election. Even in the case of withdrawal, a candidate who wishes to withdraw must deliver his notice of withdrawal to INEC at a date not later than 45 days before the date set for the general election — section 35, Electoral Act).

7⃣If a Pre-Election Matter is Filed Before The Election remains in court after the election, it the case overtaken by events? In the case of Wambai v Donatus (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt 1427) 223, Onnoghen, JSC stated that where a Pre-Election matter is filed in the High Court BEFORE the conduct of the election, the jurisdiction of the High Court over the matter/case continues to be valid even after the election has been conducted. This is based on the doctrine of lis pendens.
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

THE ADAMU MUAZU CASE (A POST-ELECTION MATTER— An Election Petition)
1⃣section 138 (1) An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds, that is to say- (a) that a person whose election is questioned was,at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election.” NOTE: here you’re questioning the election, so if you succeed in proving your case, the effect is that the election would be nullified.
2⃣Time for filing an Election Petition (post-election matter):*
Section 285(5) of the CFRN, 1999, as amended, in 2010 provides that “an Election Petition shall be filed within 21 days after the date of the declaration of result of the elections.”
2⃣Order The Tribunal Can Make In an Election Petition: Section 140 (1) Electoral Act, 2010, as amended provides that “if the [Election] Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on any ground, the Tribunal or the Court shall nullify the
election.”

PART TWO:

Plain Explanation of the differences between Adamu Muazu’s and the Bayelsa Scenario:
(a) Adamu Muazu’s case under reference was an ELECTION PETITION, a Post-Election matter; so the Tribunal had the jurisdiction under section 140(2) Electoral Act (Supra) to NULLIFY the election and order a rerun.
On the other hand, the BAYELSA State CASE (involving David Lyon’s Deputy) was a PRE-ELECTION case; the court had NO jurisdiction (in a pre-election matter) to nullify the entire election or to order a rerun. Only an ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL, properly constituted can nullify a general election or order a rerun in a general election. The regular court HAS NO such power.

(b) The ADAMU MUAZU case was an INTER-PARTY CASE (matter between two candidates of different political parties, arising from the general election)
The Election Tribunal in an inter-party perition/case has the power to nullify the general election and order a rerun. On the other hand , the Bayelsa case was an INTRA-PARTY case (a matter that relates entirely to the affairs of ONE political party, and not arising from the general elections). The court in an INTRA-PARTY case DOES NOT HAVE any jurisdiction to nullify a general election or order a rerun.

(c) The ADAMU MUAZU case was a POST-ELECTION matter (a case instituted after the conduct of a general election and relating directly to the GENERAL election) while the Bayelsa case was a PRE-ELECTION matter (a case filed before the conduct of the general elections and not arising from the general elections)

(d) The question relating to whether a candidate is qualified to contest a general election is both a ground for a PRE-ELECTION suit/case and also a ground for an ELECTION PETITION. When raised in a PRE-ELECTION MATTER, it can NEVER lead to nullification of the entire general election; it can only lead to nullification of the candidacy of the affected person. Exactly this is what happened in the Bayelsa case. On the other hand, when raised in an ELECTION PETITION, it can lead to NULLIFICATION of the entire general election; when in an ELECTION PETITION an election tribunal finds that a candidate in a general election or the person who was declared winner of the general election was NOT QUALIFIED to contest the general election, the only order the tribunal can make is to NULLIFY the election and order a rerun —- section 140(2) of the Electoral Act. Exactly this is what had happened in the ADAMU MUAZU case.

(e) It is because the Election Petition Tribunal in the ADAMU MUAZU case had NULLIFIED the General election and ordered a rerun, that was why Mr. ADAMU MUAZU even had the opportunity and LOCUS to approach the Supreme Court before date of the rerun, to BEG the Supreme Court to permit him to nominate another Deputy and still be able to participate as a candidate in the proposed rerun election. On the other hand, in the Bayelsa case, the Supreme Court DID NOT nullify the Bayelsa governorship election and did not order a rerun. So, there is no way David Lyon can have the LOCUS standi to take an application before the Supreme Court asking to be allowed an opportunity to nominate another deputy. The order of the Supreme Court in the bayelsa case leaves no one in doubt: INEC should go and give Certificate of Return as Governor of Bayelsa State, to the next candidate that has the majority of LAWFUL votes and meets the constitutional requirements.” Note that lawful votes must exclude wasted votes. Wasted votes are votes cast for a nonexistent candidate or for an illegal candidate or for a political party that has no candidate or whose candidate is not qualified.

(f) In the ADAMU MUAZU case, the Tribunal (a) disqualified the deputy governor-elect or deputy governor, (b) rightfully nullified the general elections and (c) ordered a rerun. On the other hand, in the Bayesla case, the court, not a tribunal disqualified the deputy governor-elect, but DID NOT (because it could not) nullify the general elections and it DID not order a rerun. In conclusion, on this this point, those who hold the view that the ADAMU MUAZU scenario is SIMILAR or the same as the Bayesla scenario are merely expressing their ignorance of the law. The fact that one is a Post-Election Matter while the other is a Pre-Election Matter leaves a a fundamental distinction between the two.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue
(udems)
([email protected])