Judgment of the Federal High Court of Abuja annulling the post of Governor of the Labor Party of the State of Enugu Primary: a case of judicial rascality or compromise?

It is no longer news that the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and presided over by the Honorable Justice N.E. Everest Nnaji against the Labor Party (LP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), recently ordered the Enugu State branch of the Labor Party to hold a new gubernatorial primary within 14 days from the date of the court order.

The Court's decision of 9 November 2022 was no doubt based on its erroneous findings that no primary election for the Labor Party gubernatorial candidate in Enugu State was held on August 4, 2022 or any other date.

The range of plaintiff's case before the trial court and the principal relief sought by him was a declaration by the Court declaring him to be the genuine consensus and validly nominated gubernatorial candidate of the Labor Party in the Enugu State for the upcoming 2023 General Election having paid LP Gubernatorial Nomination Form on July 13, 2022 with the sum of 25 Million Naira on behalf of Odengene Air Shuttle Services Limited.

The plaintiff, (hereafter referred to as Odengene), in this case admitted that the primary election for party governor was held on August 4, 2022. However, he contended that he was not notified of the said primary and therefore claimed that he was expelled by the party.

Questions requiring answers therefore include: (a) How can a court of competent jurisdiction, having considered in its entirety, the evidence presented before it in relation to the plaintiff's claims, conclude that the LP failed to stand any gubernatorial primary election; even where the plaintiff himself admitted in evidence that there had been such a primary election. It is well established in law that the admitted fact needs no proof. Thus, the question of the holding of the primaries of the party for the post of governor was no longer in question. Therefore, the court erred in law and fact in finding that no LP gubernatorial primary was held.

b) Secondly, if Odengene Air Shuttle Services Ltd is a member of the Labor Party and therefore qualified to be nominated for the post of Party Governor under section 84(3) of the Elections Act 2022 and the 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). It was also established in court that it was Odengene Air Shuttle Services Ltd that purchased the LP nomination form in Enugu State and not Everest Nnaji. This is a fundamental flaw which is at the root of the whole process as Odengene Shuttle Air Services Ltd is not a human person considered under Section 177 of the Constitution to stand for office as a state governor in Nigeria. This is a fundamental question to be decided which the trial judge grossly ignored and failed to decide.

c) Third, whether the issue of nominating and sponsoring a candidate for election is not squarely an internal party matter, in which the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere. It is well established in law that except in cases subject to the provisions of Article 89(7) of the electoral law which is imperi materia with article 84(14) of the new electoral law, the law remains that the nomination of a candidate for election remains the exclusive internal affair over which no court has jurisdiction. See Onuoha v. Okafor & ors (1983)2 SCNLR 244, Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003)15 NWLR(pt.843) 310 at 347 and Emeka v. Okigbo (Supra). Thus, the lawsuit brought by Odegenge should not have been allowed by the trial court because it was not justiciable.

d) Fourth, if in all the circumstances of the case, the judge did not err in law and misdirected herself, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice when she struck down the party's primary election held on August 4, 2022 which produced Hon. Chijioke Edeoga as a gubernatorial candidate without giving Edeoga an opportunity to be heard.

Furthermore, despite the fact that Labor presented to the trial court the certificate of return issued to Edeoga as a candidate for governor, the learned trial judge did not find it necessary to join him as a party to the lawsuit so he can tell his own side of the story, which amounts to a denial of the right to a fair trial.

The denial of a fair trial is a fundamental constitutional violation that voids any judgment obtained. Many knowledgeable observers and legal minds have reason to believe that the court's strange judgment was either obtained or carried by rogues...