Imo: How Supreme Court voided party intrigues

The recent decision of the Supreme Court about Imo West Senatorial District case has set an agenda for political parties in Nigeria, writes FRIDAY OLOKOR Although the nation’s judiciary has been engulfed in a criss of confidence engendered by the face-off between the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu and the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, the recent decision of the Supreme Court on the Imo West Senatorial district appears to be another test case for the judiciary, which prides itself as the last hope of the common man.

The Supreme Court had indeed finally put to rest the controversy surrounding the Imo West Senatorial seat when it pronounced Chief Hope Uzodinma as the authentic candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party for the seat. For a legal tango, which had witnessed many months of political manoeuvres and gerrymandering, it eventually became Uhuru for Uzodinma.

The apex court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Walter Onnoegen, also set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of Justice Abdul Kafarati of a Federal High Court in Abuja that Senator Osita Izunaso was the candidate of the party for the senatorial seat. He said, “This is an appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal…The appeal has merit and is therefore allowed.”

Before the judgement was delivered, the apex court took oral submissions from lawyers representing both parties in the suit with the legal team assembled by Uzodinma praying the court to grant his request and set aside the judgement of the FHC.

Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who led the team comprising four other Senior Advocates of Nigeria, contended that Justice Kafarati failed to consider all the evidence placed before him before arriving at his judgement.

Besides, he said his client was not given sufficient time to present his case as the time given to him by law was abridged by the court.

The lawyer to the PDP and the party’s National Legal Adviser, Chief Olusola Oke, pitted his tent with Uzodinma when he told the court that the appellant was the authentic candidate of the party and not Izunaso.

Justice Onnoegen, who read the lead judgement, however, said the court would give reasons for its judgement on Friday, May 20, 2011.

He stated that justice in the case should not be done outside the guidelines of the party and added that the root cause of a large number of the cases could be traced to the actions or inactions of political parties.

But in what appears to be a ploy to right the previous wrongs which had constituted a cog in the wheel of political parties in Nigeria, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal had in most of their judgements identified the absence of internal democracy in political parties as the bane of Nigeria’s electoral process.

Observers and political pundits say the problems range between unlawful substitutions of validly nominated candidates and outright disqualification of aspirants by party leaders on very ridiculous grounds without any justifiable reason. Despite this embarrassing anomaly, which was rampant during the 2007 general elections, the experts expected that the 2011 elections would be used to correct these avoidable mistakes.

The PDP was particularly fingered as the greatest culprit in this act as expressed in the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court in the Amaechi versus INEC reported in 2007 and Araraume versus PDP.

But before the 2011 elections, the PDP leadership, inundated by criticisms from Nigerians and buoyed by a renewed sense of instituting internal democracy in its activities, began preparations for the nomination of candidates for the general elections. However, in almost all the states, the problem of substitution of candidates after primaries was rife.

One of such outstanding cases was the primaries to select the PDP candidate for the Imo West Senatorial district. Dateline was January 9, 2011.

In line with the party guidelines, Uzodinma was cleared by the PDP screening committee to partake in the primaries and was even issued a provisional clearance certificate by the party dated January 6, 2011, three days before the primaries.

He was subsequently declared winner of the primaries, having polled the highest number of votes to defeat 13 other candidates with 2,147 votes, while Izunaso came second with 891 votes. However, there was a miscarriage of justice when the first runner-up and incumbent (Izunaso) approached a Federal High Court in Abuja, claiming that the winner, Uzodinma, had been disqualified by the party and was not fit to take part in the primaries.

The facts of Izunaso’s allegation were based on a petition written against Uzodinma by a legal practitioner, Mr. Festus Keyamo, on behalf of a group claiming to be indigenes of Orlu. The nature in which the matter was hatched was said to have been surrounded by mischief and blackmail. But Uzodinma, having been cleared by the party’s screening panel, should have had no business with the appeal committee. But the committee, chaired by Orji Nwafor-Orizu was suddenly said to have disqualified him.

However, the National Working Committee of the party, based on a complaint by Uzodinma, reversed the decision. An extract of the meeting of the NWC dated January 5, had been attached in the appeal before the Supreme Court.

But ahead of the hearing at the Supreme Court, the PDP wrote to the apex court, explaining why it decided to clear Uzodinma as its candidate for Imo West Senatorial district.

The party’s explanation was contained in the extract of the NWC meeting of the PDP, which reviewed the complaint by Uzodinma over his disqualification by its National Assembly Screening Appeal Panel for Imo State and forwarded to the apex court.

It was resolved that Uzodinma was not granted hearing by the appeal panel.

A terse covering letter by the acting National Chairman of PDP, Dr. Bello Mohammed, to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr. Sunday Olorundahunsi, was enclosed along with the minutes of the NWC meeting, but the party did not give further details.

The letter entitled, ‘Clearance of Chief Hope Uzodinma’, read, “Please find attached the extract of the meeting of the National Working Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party held on January 5, 2011, showing that the NWC decided that (Chief Hope) Uzodinma be cleared to contest the primary election for Imo West Senatorial district.”

The extract of the meeting was signed and issued by the PDP Deputy Director (Administration) for the party’s National Secretary, Alhaji Alkali to the party’s Organising Secretary and National Legal Adviser, Chief Olusola Oke.

The NWC noted that Uzodinma was not granted hearing by the National Assembly screening appeal panel for Imo State.

It added, “Moreover, there was no evidence that Uzodinma has been convicted of murder, armed robbery, obtaining money by false pretence and or bankruptcy, grounds upon which the appeal panel based its decision.”

In recognition of this, the Independent National Electoral Commission, in its final list of candidates, published Uzodinma as the candidate of the PDP for Imo West Senatorial district.

But despite all this, the appellate court on April 5, upheld the earlier decision of the FHC. But that decision was set aside by the apex court.

The appellate court in affirming the judgement of the FHC, dismissed the appeal brought by Uzodinma as lacking in merit. Uzodinma was dissatisfied and immediately filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.

In declaring Izunaso the party’s candidate, the Court of Appeal agreed with the FHC that Uzodinma was not cleared by the party to contest the PDP primaries and therefore, could not have emerged as the party’s candidate.

Justice Jimi Olukayode-Bada, who delivered the lead judgement, held that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and did not deny the appellant (Uzodinma) his right to fair hearing.

He said it was the evidence submitted by the appellant and the second respondent (PDP) that Justice Kafarati relied upon in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant was not cleared to contest the primaries.

The Supreme Court has, however, with the decision which favoured Uzodinma, upheld its long standing position on the rights and powers of a political party to choose its candidates within the provision of its constitution as clearly spelt out in its lead judgement delivered by Justice Onnoghen in Ehinlawo vs Oke, in which it held, “The nomination by a political party may be by way of primary election, selection, appointment etc, or a combination of the above. Whatever the method adopted, the law is that the nomination of a candidate to be sponsored by a political party remains the absolute jurisdiction of the political parties.”

Although elections were conducted on April 9 in the disputed senatorial district, INEC’s confirmation through a certified true copy that Uzodinma was the PDP candidate has depicted that the judiciary, through the apex court’s decision, has awakened into global consciousness in an attempt to remain the supreme instrument of social engineering.