IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ON FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
SC.928/2015
BETWEEN
RT. HON. PRINCE TERHEMEN TARZOOR Appellant(s)
AND
1. ORTOM SAMUEL IORAER. ......... Respondent(s)
2. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC)
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
MAIN JUDGMENT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The 3rd Respondent in this appeal, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), conducted the Governorship Election for Benue State on the 11th April, 2015.
Appellant and the 1st Respondent contested in the said election and so did six other candidates who were sponsored by their respective political parties. Appellant was sponsored by his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The 1st Respondent, in the words of the appellant, was "purportedly" sponsored by his party, the All Progressive Congress (APC). The result of the election as declared by the electoral umpire, the INEC, showed that the 1st Respondent of the APC polled a total of 422,932 votes against the total of 313,878 votes polled by the appellant of the PDP. The 3rd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent winner of the election and returned him as the elected Governor of Benue State; the 1st Respondent having satisfied other condition for such declaration and return.
Aggrieved by the result of the election in which he was the runner-up, the appellant challenged same at the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal constituted for Benue State. Appellant challenged the election and return of the 1st Respondent on three grounds, hereunder reproduced:
"GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE PETITION IS BASED:
1. Your petitioner states that the 1st Respondent, Artom Samuel Ioraer, was at the time of election, not qualified/disqualified to contest the election.
2. Your petitioner states that the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent aforesaid was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
3. Your petitioner states that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful and valid votes cast at the Governorship Election in Benue State held on the 11th day of April, 2015 and announced on 13th day of April, 2015."
In his petition, appellant pleaded facts relating only to the first ground of his petition. He pleaded no facts in respect of the second and third grounds of his petition and the said two grounds were deemed abandoned and struck out. It follows that the appellant conceded that he did not challenge the declaration and return of the appellant on either of the said grounds. The petition was determined exclusively on the single ground that:
"Your petitioner states that the 1st Respondent, Ortom Samuel loraer was, at the time of the election, not qualified/disqualified to contest the election."
The parties herein, through their respective learned Counsel, filed many other processes in addition to their respective briefs. It is surprising that so many various processes including the process in relation to the cross-appeal were filed in respect of the lone and simple issue in this appeal.
I have studied each process including the preliminary objection before going into the merit of the appeal, I will dispose of the preliminary objection of the 1st Respondent which relates to the competence of the petition. The preliminary objection was predicated on the following two grounds:
"(i) The appellant is pursuing this appeal as an independent candidate contrary to S. 221 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
(ii) The ultimate reliefs sought by the petitioner/appellant is not grantable in law by virtue of S.140(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)."
Section 221 of the Constitution (supra) is on prohibition of political activities by certain associations.
It provides, S. 221:
"No association other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate at an election."
Now the provision is concerned with associations, not an individual such as the appellant. It does not apply to the appellant.
Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act provides:
"S.140(2): Where an election tribunal or Court nullifies an election on the ground that the person who obtained the highest votes at the election was not qualified to contest the election, or that the election was marred by substantial irregularities or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, the election tribunal or Court shall not declare the person with the second highest votes or any other person as elected, but shall order a fresh election."
With profound respect to the learned Silk for the 1st Respondent, it seems to me that the section of the Electoral Act, 2010 was cited and relied on in error. It has nothing to do with the allegation that the appellant was pursuing the appeal as an independent candidate. On the other hand, Section 137(1) of the Electoral Act (supra) makes provision for those who can present Election Petitions.
It provides:
"S.137(1): An election petition may be presented by one or more of the following persons:
(a) a candidate in an election;
(b) a political party which participated in the election."
The appellant was a candidate at the April 11th Governorship election for Benue State. He is qualified to present a petition alone or in conjunction with his party. This is implicit in the expression "by one or more..." in Section 137(1) of the Electoral Act reproduced above.
Also Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act (supra) deals with nullification of election and does not relate to whether a candidate files his petition alone or joins his party by the 1st Respondent.
I am constrained to, and I do hereby, over-rule the 1st Respondent's preliminary objection on each of the two grounds relied upon by the 1st Respondent. Appellant who was a candidate at the election is one of those authorized to present an election pursuant to Section 137(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) . I do not share the view of the learned Silk for the 1st Respondent that the appellant is not consistent in the presentation of his case in that he pleaded the Electoral Act but made submissions on Section 177 of the Constitution (supra).
Section 138(1) states the grounds for questioning an election. Section 177 of the Constitution (supra) enumerates in (a - d) what qualifies a person for election to the Office of Governor of a State. Section 182 of the Constitution (supra) lists grounds for disqualification for election to the Office of Governor of a State. To determine whether a person is qualified/disqualified to contest an election in terms of Section 138(1)(a) of the Electoral Act (supra) resort must be had to Sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution (supra) Section 177 settles the question of qualification while Section 182(2) determines the question of disqualification to contest election.
In other words, the issue of qualification and disqualification, once raised as per Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act (supra) is determined with reference to Section 177 of the Constitution (supra) in case of qualification and Section 182 (1) in case of disqualification. It is therefore not inconsistent for the appellant to rely on the Electoral Act (supra) at one time and the Constitution (supra) at another time.
For the purpose of proper determination of the appeal I will ignore the rest of the preliminary objections in as much as they do not question the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the appeal. I will also ignore the myriad of issues formulated by the parties and frame issues appropriate for the determination of the sole question in the appeal. See Stirling Civil Eng. Nig. Ltd. v. Mahmood Yahaya (2005) 22 NSCQR 1.
(1) Was the 1st Respondent qualified/disqualified at the time of the election in which he was a candidate?
(2) Is the appellant, a member of one party, entitled to raise the question of nomination vel non in another party?
These issues flow from ground 19 of the notice of appeal.
I will deal with qualification first. It would appear that the appellant relied on Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act (supra) in his case that the 1st Respondent was not qualified to contest the election.
The Section provides:
"S.137(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" .... (b) (c) (d)."
Section 177 of the Constitution (supra) provides for qualification for election as governor. It provides:
"S.177: A person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if,
(a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth;
(b) he has attained the age of thirty- five years:
(c) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party;
(d) he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent."
Section 137(1) of the Electoral Act provides for grounds upon which an election may be questioned. It deals with qualification to contest election in negative terms, while Section 177 of the Constitution (supra) states the qualification in positive terms. In my humble view, Section 177 states the qualification for contesting in a governorship election while Section 138(1)(a) of the Electoral Act means that a person who has not satisfied all the conditions specified in Sections 177 and 182(1) of the Constitution (supra) at the time of the election is not qualified to contest the election. Also Section 182(1) of the Constitution (supra) lists grounds for disqualification.
In his argument, the learned Silk for the appellant relied heavily on Section 177 of the Constitution (supra), saying that he can rely on a branch of the provision of the Constitution (supra) to challenge the election of the 1st Respondent. However, learned Senior Counsel stopped short of demonstrating that:
(a) the 1st Respondent was a foreigner or not a citizen of Nigeria by birth - Section 177(c) or
(b) that he was any age below 35 years at the time of the election Section 177(b) or
(c) that he was not a member of a political party or
(d) that the said party did not sponsor him - Section 177(c) or
(e) that he was not educated up to at least School Certificate level - Section 177(d) or that he is caught by any of the disqualifying factors in Section 182(1) of the Constitution (supra).
Appellant said that the 1st Respondent was purportedly sponsored at the election by APC. Why the use of the word "purported"? Did the APC to which he belongs and which ?purportedly? sponsored him deny his membership or its sponsorship of the 1st Respondent? Did the 3rd Respondent, the statutory observer at the primary election of every political party deny knowledge of the process leading to the emergence of the 1st Respondent as the standard bearer or the APC at the Governorship election it conducted in Benue State on 11th April, 2015? Did INEC query the conduct of the primary it observed?
On the facts before the court, I must return a negative answer to each of the above questions and this means that contrary to the case of the appellant, the 1st Respondent was qualified and not disqualified to contest the Governorship election in Benue State on 11th April, 2015.
The next question is the locus standi of the appellant to impugn the exercise of primary election in a party other than his own, especially as he could not have participated in the primary election he complained about.
Primary elections are in-house matters of a political party. A non-member of the party has no locus to raise the issue and no member of the party who was not an aspirant can raise the issue. See Section 87(9)(a) of the Electoral Act (supra).
This Court has made many pronouncements on who has the locus to challenge the conduct of a primary election. See the case of Daniel v. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) page 113 at 155-157. In the most recent of the plethora of cases on the point, Okoro JSC, speaking for the Court said, inter alia:
"... Only an aspirant at the primary election is permitted by Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to challenge the selection or nomination of a person for an elective office. Apart from an aspirant who took part in the primary election, no other person is authorised to file an action to challenge the selection or nomination of a candidate by a political party for an election."
See the Judgment in SC.907/2015 (not yet reported) delivered by this Court on Friday, 8th January, 2016.
The proper venue for such challenge is the High Court of a State, the Federal High Court or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as the party filing the action may choose. As I said earlier, the appellant is a member of the PDP, not APC and even if he is a member of the APC, he would have no locus to challenge the nomination of the 1st Respondent as he is not one of the aspirants who participated in the primary election.
In my view, appellant is a meddlesome interloper who, having assumed the role of a hired mourner, is crying more than the bereaved.
A lot of resources in terms of money and valuable time have been expended in this avoidable contest which has now turned out to be a storm in a tea cup, as it were. Success and failure are the end products of our electoral process and in fact any contest at all. If in the end the process does not produce a winner and losers it has failed to achieve its goal and is inconclusive.
While it is necessary for a politician aspiring to elective office to have a mindset to win, he has to appreciate, and be prepared to accept, the fact that success and failure are the opposite sides of the end product of all contests, including elections. An electoral process is geared towards eliminating the many to pave way for the emergence of one.
If there are no reasonable grounds for challenging the result of an election, the losing party should exhibit some sportsmanship and save his resources and the precious time of the tribunal and the courts. In conclusion, it is my humble view that the appellant, not being a member of the APC, and so could not have participated in the party's primary election, cannot challenge the nomination of the 1st Respondent either before the Election Petition Tribunal or the High Court of a State, Federal High Court or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. See Section 87(a) of the Electoral Act (supra).
The appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. I affirm the judgment of the Court below in favour of the 1st Respondent.
The cross-appeals have been overtaken by the judgment in the main appeal and are hereby struck out.
Appellant is damnified in cost in the sum of N150,000 to each of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The 3rd Respondent (INEC), the nominal respondent, is to bear its own cost.
Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the Court below affirmed.
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.: This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Holden at Makurdi in appeal No CA/MK/LP/GOV/20/2015 delivered on the 1st day of November, 2015 dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the judgment of the Governorship Election Tribunal, Holden in Makurdi in petition No. EPT/BEN/GOV/01/215 in which the tribunal dismissed the petition of the petitioner, now appellant before this Court.
The facts of the case have been stated in detail in the lead judgment of my learned brother, NGWUTA, JSC and I do not intend to repeat them herein except as may be needed to emphasize the point being made.
I have had the benefit of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, NGWUTA JSC and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal has no merit and should be dismissed.
It is not in dispute that the grounds on which appellant challenged the return of 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent as the winner of the Benue State Gubernatorial Election held on 11th April, 2015 are three: viz:
''i. Your petitioner states that the 1st Respondent, Ortom Samuel loraer was, at the time of the election, not qualified/disqualified to contest the election.
ii. Your petitioner states that the Declaration and Return of the 1st Respondent aforesaid was invalid by reason of non compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
iii. Your petitioner states that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful and valid votes cast at the Governorship Election in Benue State held on 11th day of April, 2015.
The reliefs claimed by appellant in the petition are stated as follows -
''i. That it may be determined and doth declared that the 1st Respondent was not qualified and/or was disqualified from contesting the Election to the Office of Governor of Benue State on the 11th day of April, 2015, having not satisfied the mandatory requirements of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
ii. That it may be determined and doth declared that based on the lawful votes cast at the said Election, the 1st petitioner ought to have been returned as the Governor of Benue State as he scored the majority of the lawful and valid votes cast and also satisfied other requirements of the Electoral Act, 2014 (as amended) and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) hence all the votes cast for the 1st Respondent were invalid on account of his not being a candidate for the Election aforesaid.
iii. That it may be determined and doth declared that the Petitioner who was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party was duly Elected or Returned by the majority of lawful and valid votes cast at the Governorship Election in Benue State held on the 11th day of April, 2015 and declared on the 13th April, 2015.
iv. An order of the Honourable Tribunal directing the 3rd Respondent to withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to the 1st Respondent in error and issue same to the Petitioner as the winner of the Governorship Election in Benue State held on the 11th day of April, 2015 having scored the majority of lawful and valid votes cast at the Election and also satisfied the other requirements of the Electoral Act, 2010, (as amended) and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
From the 1st ground for the challenge of the return of 1st respondent, it is clear that the complaint is that at the time of the election held on 11th April, 2015, the 1st respondent was not qualified or disqualified to contest the same. The above ground is in line with the provision of Section 138(1)(a) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended which states thus:
"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."
The question that follows is: In what way or circumstance is a person qualified at the time of the election to contest for the office of Governor of a State being the relevant election in the instant case?
The answer to the above question is in the provisions of Sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended dealing with qualification and disqualification of such a person respectively. The provisions are reproduced hereunder:
''177. A person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if.
(a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth;
(b) he has attained the age of thirty-five years;
(c) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party; and
(d) he has been educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent."
From the facts pleaded in the petition and evidence on record, it appears the complaint of non qualification of 1st respondent is grounded on Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 177 supra.
A member of a political party is one who is registered with that party as its member, is issued with its membership card and fulfills all requirements of membership. It is therefore the political party concerned that can state, conclusively that a person is its member as can be demonstrated by production of its membership register and other relevant documents, if the issue arises.
On the other hand, sponsorship of a person by a political party is as regulated under the provisions of Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, by way of direct or indirect primary election for nomination of party candidates.
In the instant case, there is evidence that though 1st respondent was originally a member of the Peoples Democratic Party and did contest that party's primary election for the nomination of its candidate for the Benue State Governorship election, which was won by appellant. 1st respondent resigned his membership of the PDP and subsequently joined the 2nd respondent and was presented to 3rd respondent as 2nd respondent's consensus candidate for the election in issue; that 1st respondent subsequently participated in the said election and was returned elected.
There is no challenge from any member of the 2nd respondent as to the emergence of 1st respondent as its candidate for the said election.
It has been held in a plethora of cases that nomination of a candidate of a political party for an election is the internal affairs of the political parties over which the courts have no jurisdiction. Also settled is the principle that the only way the courts can get involved in matters of nomination of candidates of political parties is as provided under Section 87 (8) or (9) or (10) depending on which version of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended one is using, and that only a candidate who participated in the primary election or contests in the processes leading to the emergence of a candidate of the party for the election, has the locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction so conferred on the courts to challenge the said nomination. It is not every or any other member of the political party concerned that has the locus standi to do so. The position of a person who is not a member of the political party concerned is the same. In fact he is a busy body. Appellant in this case is not a member of 2nd respondent neither did he participate in the processes that resulted in the emergence of 1st respondent as a consensus candidate of the 2nd respondent for that election. Even if appellant were to have the locus the proper venue for that challenge is the Federal, State or Federal Capital Territory High Courts, the matter being a pre-election matter, which must be filed before the conduct of the election in issue. It is not the subject for an Election Tribunal. It is very clear from the above that appellant failed to establish that 1st respondent was not qualified to contest the election of 11th April, 2015 under the provisions of Section 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
From the pleading, the relief sought by appellant that he be declared the winner of the election in question with majority of lawful votes cast at the election is based on an assumption that 1st Respondent was neither a member of 2nd respondent nor was 1st respondent sponsored by the 2nd respondent as its candidate for that election. If the assumption were to hold, it would have meant that the votes scored by 1st respondent are wasted votes thereby leaving appellant as the candidate with majority of lawful and valid votes cast in the election. See relief ii supra. Once the assumption is proved to be what it is, the petition must fail.
With the above being the true state of the law, one wonders why the only surviving ground of the petition could have generated so many processes such as the five issues formulated by appellant in the appellant brief filed on 10/12/15; the two cross appeals and preliminary objections.
It should be noted that the appeal was heard on Monday 11th January, 2016 and judgment adjourned to today, Friday 15th January, 2016 so as to meet up with statutory limitation. This is unfair to this Court and Counsel should do everything possible to keep their matters simple and to the point so as not to continue to waste the time of the courts or make it near impossible for the courts to determine the matters on time and on the merit.
I share the views of my learned brother, NGWUTA, JSC that having determined the appeal on the merit, a determination of the cross appeals would serve no useful purpose. The issues determined in the main appeal constitute the substance of the complaint of appellant at the tribunal and the main issues before this Court.
It is for the above reasons and the more detailed reasons assigned in the lead judgment of my learned brother that I too find no merit in the appeal and consequently dismiss same. I abide by the consequential orders made therein including the order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.: I agree with the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta JSC and to record my support I shall make some remarks.
This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 18th of November, 2015 wherein their Lordships in that Court below affirmed the decision of the Benue State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal dismissing the Appellant's petition which was filed against the 3rd Respondent's return of the 1st Respondent as the elected governor of Benue State at the general election held on the 11th of April, 2015.
The facts leading to this appeal are well set out in the lead judgment and so no need for a repetition herein.
Adebayo Adenipekun SAN on the 11th day of January, 2016 date of hearing adopted his Brief of Argument for the Appellant filed on 10/12/12 wherein he crafted five issues for determination which are as follows:-
i) Whether the Lower Court was right when it held that the onus of proof as to whether the 2nd Respondent'??s political party conducted a primary election which produced the 1st Respondent as its candidate was on the Appellant. (Ground 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6).
ii) Whether the Lower Court was wrong when it affirmed the decision of the trial tribunal dismissing the petition on the basis that the Appellant did not prove his petition having regard to the evidence on record. (Grounds 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 & 19).
iii) Whether the Lower Court was right when it held that there was no need to consider the argument of counsel on Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act (as amended) as the tribunal's judgment was not based on the said section (Ground 15).
iv) Whether the Lower Court was right in striking out ground 4 of the Appellant's Notice of Appeal before it and holding that the Appellant was out of time in appealing against the decision complained against in the said Ground 4 (Ground 16).
v) Whether the Lower Court was right to have set aside the judgment of the tribunal in relation to the challenge of the tribunal'??s jurisdiction after the Lower court had held that the tribunal was right in dismissing the motion filed by the Respondents challenging its jurisdiction. (Ground 18).
Chief Adeniyi Akintola SAN, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent adopted his Brief of Argument filed on the 16/12/15 and in which he couched four issues for determination which are, viz:-
ISSUE NO. 1
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT'S PETITION WAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR FAILURE TO DISCHARGE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT 1ST RESPONDENT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO CONTEST AS A CANDIDATE IN THE ELECTION INTO OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF BENUE STATE HELD ON 11TH APRIL, 2015. (GROUNDS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 & 19).
ISSUE NO. 2
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL CAME TO THE CORRECT DECISION IN HOLDING THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING APPELLANT'S PETITION WAS NOT FOUNDED UPON SECTION 140(2) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2010 (AS AMENDED) . (GROUND 15). ISSUE NO. 3
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS RIGHT IN STRIKING OUT GROUND (4) FOUR OF THE APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL. (GROUND 16).
ISSUE NO. 4
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL CAME TO THE CORRECT DECISION IN SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH RESOLVED ISSUE OF JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT. (GROUND 18).
1st Respondent had however raised two preliminary objections, one of which was argued in the 1st Respondents Brief.
For the 2nd Respondent, Mr. Sebastine T. Hon SAN adopted its Brief of Argument filed on the 14/12/15 in which he raised five issues for determination which are as follows:-
1. Was the decision of the Court of Appeal on burden of proof correct in law bearing in mind facts of this petition? (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Appellants Ground of Appeal).
2. Did the Appellant prove his case sufficiently to merit judgment being delivered in his favour? (Grounds 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19 of Appellant's grounds of Appeal).
3. Was the lower Court correct in its finding that the trial Tribunals finding on Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended was not a ratio decidendi. (Ground 15 of Appellant's Grounds of Appeal).
4. Was the Court of Appeal right in striking out Appellant's Ground of Appeal No. 4 filed before that Court? (Ground 16 of Appellant's Grounds of Appeal).
5. Was the Court of Appeal right in its conclusion while ruling on the 2nd Respondent's Cross-Appeal that the judgment of the Tribunal on the jurisdictional issues raised by the 2nd Respondent was set aside? (Ground 18 of the Appellants Grounds of Appeal).
2nd Respondent also raised a preliminary Objection argued in the said Brief of Argument. Prof. A.A. Ijohor for the 3rd Respondent adopted their Brief of Argument filed on 15/12/2015 and equally adopted the issues as identified by the Appellant.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
The Objections of the 1st Respondent are centred on the lack of locus standi of the Appellant to set the Petition in motion. Also that the Appellant presented and prosecuted the petition at the tribunal and Lower Court as a lone ranger challenging the emergence of the 1st Respondent as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent when Appellant was not a member of the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent's Objection has to do with the Appellant seeking the nullification of the election of 1st Respondent when he did not plead any evidence to