Election Petitions (568)
"The law is settled that in order to prove unlawful exclusion after valid nomination by his party, a petitioner must show the following: "(i) that he was validly nominated by his political party; (ii) that an election was conducted; (iii) that a winner was declared; and (iv) that his name was not included in the list of the contestants." Per Katsina-Alu, J.S.C.(P. 41, paras. B-E) ALHAJI ATIKU ABUBAKAR, GCON & ORS. V. ALHAJI UMARU MUSA YAR'ADUA & ORS.(2008) LPELR-51(SC)
"I think it is plain that the ground provided under section 145(1)(d) of the Electoral Act relating to exclusion of a candidate from contesting the election and the three other grounds provided under the same section 145(1)(a), (b) and (e) relating to disqualification, of a candidate who was returned, corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and failure to secure majority of lawful votes cast at the election are mutually exclusive.
"The effect in law of a petitioner claiming exclusion under section 145(1)(d) of the Act, is that he has shut himself out from presenting his petition under any of the grounds stipulated in section 145(1)(a), (b) and (c), as none of the grounds can still avail him.
"An election petition is sui generis. That is to say it is in a class by itself. Surely, this is no longer a moot point. It is different from a common law civil action." Per Katsina-Alu, JSC (P. 22, paras. B-C) ALHAJI ATIKU ABUBAKAR, GCON & ORS. V. ALHAJI UMARU MUSA YAR'ADUA & ORS.(2008) LPELR-51(SC)
"The thrust of the 1st leg of appellant's claim made out, is rooted in the effect of 3rd respondent's non payment of his membership dues to the 1st respondent and his right to contest an election on the party's platform. By 3rd respondent's non-payment of his dues, he ceases to be a member of the party and as such disentitled to participate in 1st respondent's primary election. If he purports to participate, the 1st respondent by its Constitution and Electoral would be bereft of the power to present 3rd respondent's name to the 2nd respondent as a candidate in any election.
"As rightly envisaged by the senior counsel Chief Olanipekun, SAN, by the very enactment of Paragraph 48(f) of the Guidelines under reference, same is deemed to come later and after Article 14(b) and 15(2) of the party guidelines.
"I have restated earlier in this judgment also that the nature of the allegation lodged against the 3rd respondent by the appellant is firmly rooted in criminality and which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as rightly held by the lower Court. See Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act; See also the cases of Boyo v. Ngidda (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 876) 544; Yakubu V. Jauroyel (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 205; Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 847) 554.
"On the allegation that the 3rd respondent presented false age declarations to the 1st respondent where he variously claimed that he was born on 2/3/1968, 2/3/1969 and that his Biodata's date of birth in the University is 2/3/1966.
"My lords, please permit me to reiterate that the first leg of the Appellants grouse relates to nomination of a candidate by a political party.
"Article 14(b) of the Electoral Guidelines for primary Elections 2014 of the 1st respondent also provides:- "(a) An aspirant to the gubernatorial primary election shall not be qualified to be nominated or to contest the primary election if he/she (b). Presents a false certificate or declaration of age for the purpose of the primary election or for any other purpose."