Section 84(12) Of The Electoral Act: FHC Ibadan HAD Earlier Struck Out A Similar Suit For Want Of Locus Standi

*Says The Section Is Personal To Political Appointees

A Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan on the 17^th of March, 2022, struck out a suit seeking the nullification of the contentious Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022.

TheNigeriaLawyer recalls that on the 18^th of March, 2022, a Federal High Court in Umuahia delivered a judgement coram Hon. Justice Evelyn Anyadike nullifying Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act and ordered the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN to delete the said section from the Act.

The decision has since been subject to intense public scrutiny and critique from lawyers and concerned members of the public alike, including the National Assembly who decried not been joined as a party to the suit.

However, one day earlier, on the 17^th of March, 2022, a similar suit was struck out by the Federal High Court, Umuahia coram Hon. Justice U.N. Agomoh in a suit marked “FHC/IB/CS/32/2022” between Chief Oyewole Bolanle V. The Attorney General of the Federation.

In the judgement sighted by TheNigeriaLawyer, the court raised the issue of locus standi/jurisdiction Suo moto and struck out the suit as it held the Plaintiff was bereft of the locus standi to maintain the action thus depriving the court of jurisdiction to hear the case.

Click Here To Download The ruling

In the Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiff, the suit sought the determination of the following questions:

1. Whether by the combined effect of Sections 1(3), 6(6)(a) and (b), 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) and 182(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended; the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 can validly limit, remove, abrogate, disenfranchise, disqualify, and/or oust the constitutional right or eligibility of any political office or public office holder to vote or be voted for at any convention or congress of any political party for the purposes of nomination of such person or candidate for any election, where such person has “resigned, withdrawn or retired” from the said political or public office at least 30 days before the date of the election.
2. Whether by the combined effect of Sections 1(3), 6(6)(a) and (b), 66(1)(f), 107(1)(f), 137(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended; the provisions of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 can validly limit, remove, abrogate, disenfranchise, disqualify, and/or oust the constitutional right or eligibility of any political office or public office holder to vote or be voted for at any convention or congress of any political party for the purposes of nomination of such person or candidate for any election, where such person has “resigned, withdrawn or retired” from the said political or public office at least 30 days before the date of the election is not unconstitutional, ultra vires and inconsistent with the Constitution, invalid and therefore null and void in its entirety?

The Plaintiff then prayed the court for a declaration that section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 cannot validly limit, remove, abrogate, disenfranchise, disqualify, and/or oust the constitutional right or eligibility of any political office or public office holder to vote or be voted for at any convention or congress of any political party for the purposes of nomination of such person or candidate for any election, where such person has “resigned, withdrawn or retired” from the said political or public office at least 30 days before the date of the election.

AN ORDER nullifying the said sections and an ORDER directing and compelling the defendant to delete the provisions of the Section 84(12) from the Electoral Act, 2022 with immediate effect.

In his ruling on the issue of locus standi and jurisdiction raised suo moto, the Court held that The Courts have held that its duty to declare a violation of the provisions of the Constitution arises only when there is a dispute before it brought by legitimate disputants who would be affected by the illegality complained of.

It held: “The judicial powers vested on the court expansive as it is, can only be invoked by a proper application brought by a person who has sufficient legal interest to bring the action.

The court further held that the section in questions is only personal to political or public office holders and does not infringe on the right of the Plaintiff, hence, he lacks sufficient interest to maintain the action.

“It is my respectful view that the right created under Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 is personal to a political or public office holder. It cannot therefore be said as learned counsel would want this court to, that the right of every Nigerian particularly the plaintiff herein has been infringed upon under Section 84(12) supra. I do not think so.

The Court therefore held that it lacks the jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s case and struck out the suit.

“Consequent upon my thoughts above, it is my firm view that this court lacks the competence to assume jurisdiction over a case that the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute. The resultant effect is that the suit is hereby struck.