FCT poll: Supreme Court affirms Ishaku as APC candidate for Bwari

The Supreme Court, on Monday, affirmed Mr. Joshua Ishaku as the lawful candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the February 21 chairmanship election for the Bwari Area Council. A five-man panel of the apex court, in a decisive four-to-one judgment, conclusively resolved the dispute over the rightful candidate for the area council. Reading […]

The Supreme Court, on Monday, affirmed Mr. Joshua Ishaku as the lawful candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the February 21 chairmanship election for the Bwari Area Council.

A five-man panel of the apex court, in a decisive four-to-one judgment, conclusively resolved the dispute over the rightful candidate for the area council.

Reading the lead judgment, Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur set aside the majority decision of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which had affirmed a Federal High Court judgment declaring Mr. Haruna Audi as the APC candidate. Instead, Justice Tukur upheld the dissenting judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang of the appellate court, which had set aside the lower court’s ruling and affirmed Ishaku as the lawful candidate.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Ishaku approached the Supreme Court following the appellate court’s decision to uphold the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered by Justice Emeka Nwite.

Delivering the judgment on Monday, the apex court held unequivocally that Ishaku’s suit was neither statute-barred nor premature, and that the case did not fall within the “insulated confines” of internal party affairs. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the appellant’s action was caught by a statute of limitations.

The court held that the “inevitable conclusion” from the record was that the appellant had been denied the opportunity to be heard and, therefore, denied a fair hearing.

On the question of internal party remedies, the court made it clear that the “internal affairs doctrine” is not absolute. The panel held that where party guidelines are violated or statutory and constitutional rights are implicated—particularly under Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act—the courts are not precluded from intervening.

The apex court further stated that it is contradictory to insist that a declared winner of a primary election must exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms designed for aggrieved aspirants. That obligation, the court clarified, rests solely on the losing aspirant.

While the majority decision at the Court of Appeal had previously ruled against him, Justice Abang’s dissenting opinion was ultimately vindicated by the apex court’s ruling. (NAN)