I do not agree with those arguing that the Supreme Court has decided that matters of this nature are internal affairs of a political party. Electoral matters are sui generis. It’s hard to stick to precedents when the facts are entirely different and the laws canvassed are also different.
I note that in most if not all matters in which the SC established the principle of “internal affairs” of a political party, it’s either that another party was pokenosing into the affairs of its opponent party, or the law canvassed were not helpful. Here, the main parties are members of the same political party, PDP. The laws canvassed or applicable are different from those previously canvassed to establish principle of internal affairs of political parties.
The principle of “internal democracy” is what’s relevant in this dispute, in my humble view. The Constitution (section 228 (a) and (b)) is clear that rules or guidelines of political parties especially on party primaries are meant to promote “internal democracy”. If a party fails to adhere to its own guidelines, would it be promoting internal democracy? Would it be proper for it to benefit from the failure to promote internal democracy?
I have read arguments that the relevant section of the Electoral Act is section 84 (14) in respect of locus standi to institute action in respect of party primaries. What about section 84 (13) that provides that if a party fails to comply with the Electoral Act with regards to conduct of primaries, the party shall not be included on the ballot? From the way it’s drafted, section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act does not expressly prohibit 🚫 other interested persons from ventilating their rights in respect of compliance with the guidelines of a political party. It only allows an aspirant to commence action to ventilate grievance.
Can we say that the legal principle ubi jus ibi remedium is no longer applicable even when a statute does not expressly prohibit its application?
This is the crucial question in this dispute: Are these aggrieved delegates to be left without remedies, simply because they’re not aspirants as provided by section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act? I think that’s not the spirit of section 228 (a) and (b) of the Constitution or section 84 (13) of the Electoral Act. That’s most definitely not the spirit behind the PDP Constitution which provides guidelines for selection of delegates for party primaries.
In conclusion, I think the plaintiffs stand a very good chance of success if they urge the Court of Appeal (if they decide to appeal or cross appeal) to ignore all arguments on internal affairs of political parties. Instead, the court should focus on the principle of internal democracy to nullify the primary election which produced Asue Ighodaro because the plaintiffs were excluded from the primary in violation of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, and the PDP Constitution and guidelines.
Professor Edoba Omoregie, SAN
Nota Bene:
The obvious error which those who are contending lack of standi on the part of plaintiffs easily run themselves into is their lack of discernment to draw the clear distinction which exists between rights as an aspirant and others as a delegate. Whereas the case of the aspirant who goes to court is that he has been shortchanged in the exercise of his right to pursue his goal to be a candidate, that of the delegate is that he has been shortchanged in exercising his legal rights to take part in the selection process, as ordained by legal prescriptions, be it law, regulations or rules.
In each case, legal rights exist but of different characteristics. Where there is a breach in each case, there is a remedy to be pursued on the time-honoured legal principle that there can be no wrong without a remedy. In this instance, I’m of the view that plaintiffs are invested with standi to institution the action. In any event, the court has already decided the point, and we now await the opinion of the CA. I do not see a different outcome. Over and above the foregoing, the Constitutional leverage for strict adherence on the internal democracy by the political parties is not to be taken lightly. That is not to be breached, but if breached, it is done at the breacher’s peril.
