Posted by By GODWIN TSA, Abuja on
Vice President Atiku Ababakar recorded another electoral victory on Wednesday when a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja held that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has no powers, under the law, to disqualify candidates already cleared by their political parties for the April 2007 general elections.
Vice President Atiku Ababakar recorded another electoral victory on Wednesday when a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja held that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has no powers, under the law, to disqualify candidates already cleared by their political parties for the April 2007 general elections.
The court, however, declared that it was the duty of INEC to conduct a verification exercise on the names of candidates presented to it by political parties to ensure that the condition set in sections 66, 106,107,117 and 137 of the 1999 constitution for candidates contesting elections are complied with.
In its ruling, in the suit filed by Action Congress (AC) and its presidential candidate, Vice President Abubakar, challenging the powers of the INEC to screen candidates already cleared by their respective political parties for the 2007 general election, the court further held that by the provisions of section 32 (6) of the Electoral Act, 2006, the INEC has powers to fine a political party that presents the name of a candidate who does not meet the qualifications stipulated in Section 32 of the same Act.
In addition, the court held that the INEC has powers, under paragraphs 15 (a) to (I) of the third schedule of the 1999 constitution, to organize, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the president and vice president, the governor and deputy governor of a state, and to the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each state of the federation, including all other processes leading to the conduct of the election.
Justice Babs Kuewumi, who delivered the judgment, held that the provisions of Section 32 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2006 is clear that only a court of law could disqualify candidates.
The said section reads: "If the court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit is false, the court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election."
In their originating summons filed by the VP's team of lawyers, including Professor B. O. Nwabueze SAN, Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim (SAN), Rickey M. Tarfa (SAN), Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), they posed four fundamental cum constitutional questions for the court to determine, including:
•Whether the defendant has powers, under the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the Electoral Act, 2006 to conduct any verification of the credentials/papers and/or screening out and/or disqualifying candidates, including the 2nd plaintiff for the 2007 general elections.
•Whether, by the provisions of the third schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, item 15 paragraph (a) to (i) and Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2006 or any other provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006 or any other law, any other person other than the Plaintiff has the exclusive right to verify and or screen its candidates before sponsoring them by forwarding their names to the Defendant.
•Whether the defendant has powers, under any law or enactment to disqualify or screen out the 2nd plaintiff as a candidate or any other candidate for the 2007 general elections.
•Whether, by the provisions of Section 32 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2006, any other person or bodies other than a court of law could disqualify any candidate from contesting election.
Should the questions be answered in their favour, they are requesting the court to move in their favour by issuing the following reliefs:
•A declaration that the defendant has no power, under the provisions of the constitution, the Electoral Act, 2006, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (Establishment, Etc) Act Cap 15, Laws of the Federation, 2004 to conduct any verification of the credentials/papers and/or screening out and/or disqualifying candidates including the 2nd Plaintiff for the 2007 General Elections.
•A declaration that, by the provisions of Section 32 of the Electoral Act, 2006, only the 1st plaintiff, a political party, has the power to verify and or screen out its candidates before sponsoring them for election by forwarding their names to the Defendant.
•A declaration that the defendant has no power, under the constitution, Electoral Act, 2006 and the Independent National Electoral Commission (Establishment, Etc) Cap 15, Laws of the Federation, 2004 to disqualify or screen out the 2nd plaintiff as a candidate or any other candidate for the 2007 General Elections.
•A declaration that the power to disqualify any candidates sponsored by any political party, including the 1st plaintiff from contesting any election is exclusively vested in the court as provided for in Section 32 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2006.
•An order setting aside the directive of the defendant to all the political parties, including the 1st plaintiff to present their candidates for physical verification and or screening.
•An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, whether by themselves, their agents, privies, officers or by whosoever, from conducting physical verification and or screening of candidates put forward by political parties to contest in the 2007 general elections including the 2nd Plaintiff.
In his judgment, the court granted the first relief to the extent that INEC has no powers to disqualify candidates. It, however, refused to grant the second relief on the grounds that it was academic.
Also, the court refused the third relief.
The court, however, granted relief four by declaring that the power to disqualify any candidates sponsored by any political party, including the AC from contesting any election, was exclusively vested in the court as provided for in section 32 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2006.
Justice Kuewumi declined to order an injunction sought by the plaintiffs against the INEC on the grounds that when an act has been completed, the court cannot issue an injunction.