Why Taraba Tribunal Ruling Must Stand

On December 11, 2014, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) stayed true to form and character. The governorship primary for Taraba state was moved from Jalingo to Abuja with no explanations offered whatsoever. Darius Ishaku who had just resigned his position as minister in the federal cabinet, was handpicked as the PDP flag bearer for the Taraba governorship election even as 750 delegates of the party from different local governments in Taraba, were locked out of the venue of a party primary that never was. The venue of the primary election was of course the PDP’s rarefied Wadata Plaza in Abuja.

“Kangaroo primaries conducted by a cult of personalities”, Alhaji Garba Umar, who was ostensibly the preferred candidate of choice of majority of the Taraba delegates, cursed under his breath.

He had been out-maneuvered in a manner only the PDP hierarchy could manage–locked out alongside his supporters by his own political party. Alhaji Umar was acting Governor at the time but Abuja didn’t seem to like his face, regardless. Darius Ishaku was declared the winner of the PDP primary for the governorship contest without a ballot cast in anger. He would go on to emerge Taraba governor, internal party democracy be damned!
When on Saturday November 7 2015, the Taraba State Governorship Tribunal sitting in Abuja, declared Ishaku’s challenger in the general elections, Hajia Aisha Alhassan of the All Progressives Congress (APC) winner of the April 11th, 2015 Governorship election held in Taraba state, it was acting based on the foregoing.

As everyone now knows, the tribunal held that Governor Darius Ishaku was not validly nominated as candidate of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and was therefore not qualified, ab initio, to contest the governorship election. The petitioner, Hajia Aisha Alhassan and the All Progressives Congress (APC) alleged that the 11th December, 2014 Governorship primary held at the PDP secretariat in Abuja was conducted in violation of Section 87(1) and (2) of the Electoral Act, 2010(as amended).

Was not validly nominated by his party…
And what exactly does Section 87 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) stipulate? I’ll take the liberty to quote the entire section below:
Section 87

(1) A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold primaries for the aspirants to all elective positions;

(2) The procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct or indirect primaries;

(3) A political party that adopts direct primaries procedures shall ensure that all aspirants are given equal opportunity of being voted for by members of the party;

(4) (b) In the case of the nomination to the position of Governorship candidates, a political party, where they intend to sponsor candidates must:

(i) hold special congress in each of the local government areas of the state with delegates voting for each of the aspirant at the congress to be held in designated centers on specified dates;

(ii) The aspirants with the highest number of votes at the end of the voting shall be declared the winner of the primaries of the party and the aspirant’s name shall be forwarded to INEC as the candidate of the party, for the particular state.

Not only did the PDP flout this entire section in putting Darius Ishaku’s name forward as its flag-bearer for the Taraba governorship contest, it also trampled on Section 85 (1) of the electoral act 2010 (as amended) which stipulates that political parties must give the electoral commission a 21-day notice of any impending “convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of electing members of its executive committee…or nominating candidates for any of the elective offices specified under this Act”.

Reports published by the dailies in December 2014 indicate that the PDP Abuja phantom primary was conducted 5 days outside the legally stipulated period. It is now a matter of public record that INEC witnesses adduced during testimony at the hearing of the election petition that the statutory notice wasn’t served on the Commission.

It wouldn’t surprise anyone if INEC staffers were part of the lot locked out of Wadata Plaza on the day.
Arguments have also been put forward regarding whether the tribunal acted outside its powers and contravened Section 140 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) when it not only nullified Ishaku’s election, it went ahead to declare Alhassan the outright winner of the general ballot. Proponents of this school of thought cite the following (with emphasis on Sub-section 2):
Section 140

(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, if the 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;

(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, the Election Tribunal or court shall not declare the person with the second highest votes as elected, but shall order a fresh election.
The Election Tribunal or court shall not declare the person with the second highest votes as elected, but shall order a fresh election.

Many critics of the Taraba tribunal judgment argue that the tribunal erred in law by exercising powers not granted it by Section 140 and declaring Aisha Alhassan as the elected Governor of Taraba state instead of ordering for a fresh election.

However, these critics forget that Sections 140 (2) and 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) were struck out in 2012 by the ruling of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

In the unreported but documented judgment delivered by Justice Kolawole in Labour Party Vs INEC and the Attorney General of the Federation, the court held that Sections 140(2) and 141 of the said Electoral Act are inconsistent with Sections 239 and 285 of the Constitution, 1999 (as amended) and that by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Constitution, those sections of the Electoral Act are to the extent of their inconsistencies VOID, and that Sections 239 and 285 prevail.

Hence, the PDP is a victim of its own time-honored disdain for internal democracy with regards to the Taraba tribunal ruling.

The judgment ceding the governorship election to Alhassan should be seen as a landmark one which will hopefully enshrine internal democracy principles in the affairs of Nigeria’s political parties going forward; and provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to harmonize the conflicting judgments that have emerged from the various governorship Election Tribunals thus far.