My view on S/Court’s ruling on Adamawa governorship primaries

Why am I not an aspirant after buying, filling and submitting Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms, and after being screened and cleared by the party, and with my name on the ballot paper, the court said because I did not participate fully in the primaries. Secondly, in a supporting argument, the court further said […]

Why am I not an aspirant after buying, filling and submitting Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms, and after being screened and cleared by the party, and with my name on the ballot paper, the court said because I did not participate fully in the primaries. Secondly, in a supporting argument, the court further said that I obtained Expression of Interest Form but did not pay for it. Now this is a very serious allegation – if really I did not pay for my forms, then indeed I have no right to raise an issue on the conduct of the primaries. Thirdly, the court raised an issue of court technicality which it ruled that my lawyers did not follow and therefore rendered the case incompetent.
These three are issues of facts, law and procedure. As a ‘proverbial lay man’ in the legal profession, I won’t be able to discuss law and court procedure, but I know the facts of my case. It is a fact the court asserted that I did not participate fully in the primaries, and so cannot complain on the election. What is ‘participating fully in the primaries’, the court did not say. But where did the court get the idea that I did not participate fully in the primaries when all the parties in the suit ab initio are agreed that there were only two contestants in the primary elections – myself and Governor Nyako – and that I was defeated, and the issue of participation was never in contention? The answer is that the trial court brought it suo motu, i.e. all by itself without getting counsels to address it. I appealed against this infraction at the Court of Appeal and won. Yet without any cross-appeal on the matter, the Supreme Court astonishingly reintroduced the matter and decided I did not ‘fully participate’ and therefore have no right to complain.  
The governorship primaries in the PDP is a process that starts from A – H, i.e. A. Buying of Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms; B. Filling and Returning of Forms; C. Screening of Aspirants; D. Appeal on Screening; E. Election of 3 Ad hoc Ward delegates; F. Appeal on Ad hoc ward delegates elections; G. Primary Election; and H. Appeal on Primary Election. In Adamawa State a total of 847 delegates nominate the gubernatorial candidate for the party. Of this figure, 169 are statutory delegates, while the remaining 678 are the 3 Ad hoc delegates each from the 226 Wards of the state. By the guidelines of the party, the sole objective of these Ad hoc delegates, averaging 81% of the Electoral College, is to nominate for the party its gubernatorial candidate and after this exercise they stand automatically dissolved.
Two of us went through the processes from ‘A’ to ‘D’. In the conduct of ‘E’, that is electing the 3 ward Ad hoc delegates, the provision of the Party Guidelines was breached in that Delegates’ Nomination Forms were not sold and the elections did not hold. Rather, the party along with my fellow ‘aspirant’ sad down in the comfort of the Government House and drew up a list of 678 of the Governor’s supporters and submitted as elected Ad hoc delegates and asked that in the morning we should assemble at the election venue for the purpose of conducting item ‘G’ – i.e. the Primary Election. I objected, insisting that conducting item ‘E’ in accordance to the Guidelines is a condition–precedent to proceeding to item ‘G’. I then threatened that if they proceeded to ‘G’ without rectifying ‘E’, I will proceed to court. And that was exactly what happened – they proceeded to item ‘G’ and I proceeded to court.
Now the Electoral Act is very clear; it said if an ‘aspirant’ feels that any of the provisions of the Act or the Party Guidelines have been breached in the process of nominating a candidate in the Primaries, he can approach a Federal, State or FCT High Court for redress. Hence I approached the Federal High Court Yola, alleging that the Party Guidelines have been breached in that, among others issues, the 3 Ad hoc delegates were not elected accordingly.
But at the end of the day, with this decision of the Supreme Court, the entire gamut of our Courts refused to entertain my suit. For the trial court, its ground was that I did not participate in the primary election, an issue brought by the court sou motu. For the Court of Appeal, its ground was that I did not qualify as an aspirant as defined by the Supreme Court in other previous cases, and therefore by the doctrine of stare decisis I cannot be imbued with locus standi to be heard by the court.

(To be concluded)

Dr Ardo is a PDP chieftain in Adamawa State