Some Nigerians are concerned about the National Assembly’s recent amendment to the Electoral Act of 2022, which allows statutory delegates – all those elected – to participate and vote in political party conventions, congresses, and meetings, claiming it was done to help Senate President Ahmad Lawan, who recently entered the 2023 presidential race under the All Progressives Congress (APC).
This comes as the Court of Appeal’s ruling yesterday, which overturned a Federal High Court verdict in Umuahia, Abia State, that struck down Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022, has sparked varied emotions in the public and among top lawyers.
Read Also: In new attack, bandits kill four people and injure several others in Benue community
The goal of the new modification to the Electoral Act, which passed quickly in both chambers of the National Assembly, was reportedly to boost Lawan’s chances in the party’s presidential primary and then in the presidential elections.
“What the National Assembly is attempting to do is to back Lawan with a large number of statutory delegates of former and present legislators who would be permitted to attend such conventions and congresses if the amendment were passed,” says the source. They number around 4,000 people and are likely to rally behind Ahmad Lawan. As a result, they are attempting to modify the law once more to fit their own selfish interests and calculations. Will President Buhari, however, sign it? “That is what everyone is wondering,” said a source who requested anonymity.
Analysts may easily recall what happened with the previous electoral bill, in which they struck an agreement with the president to change after the president signed the amended Electoral Act, only for the parliamentarians to back out.
The President, Vice President, Members of the National Assembly, Governors and their deputies, Members of the State Houses of Assembly, Chairmen of Councils, Councillors, and the National Working Committee of political parties are among those listed as statutory delegates. Meanwhile, some top lawyers commenting on yesterday’s appellate court judgement observed that as a result of the decision, political appointees are no longer required to quit their appointments 30 days before attending their political parties’ congresses and conventions.
Read Also: Army confirms death of 6 soldiers in Taraba, search for one other
Others, however, disagreed, stating that the part of the electoral statute continues to exist despite the setting aside of the verdict that had ordered its repeal.
Justice Evelyn Anyadike of the Federal High Court, Umuahia had in a judgment delivered on March 18, 2022, held that the said Section 84 (12) which barred political appointees from participating in the congresses and conventions of their political parties except they resign their appointments 30 days to the period was unconstitutional.
The lower court had predicated its decision on the fact that the constitution had already stipulated the criteria for the qualification and disqualification of persons seeking election into public offices, adding that the provisions of the amended electoral act runs contrary to the provisions and as such must be struck down.
However, not pleased with the decision, the People’s Democratic Party had approached the court to set aside the judgment of the lower court on the grounds that it erred in law when it entertained a suit wherein it lacked the legal authority to do so because the plaintiff was not qualified to institute the legal action.
However, delivering judgment on the appeal yesterday, the appellate court held that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and subsequently voided the judgment of Justice Anyadike.
Read Also: Terrorists killed 40 Taraba residents and 6 soldiers, according to Senate
The judgment was in the appeal marked: CA/OW/87/2022 and had Nduka Edede and the Attorney General of the Federation as respondents.
In a unanimous decision, the three-member panel of the appellate court presided by Justice Hamma Barka held that the Federal High Court, Umuahia, had no jurisdiction to have entertained the case in the first case because the plaintiff, Edede, did not have the legal authority to initiate the suit.
According to the panel the plaintiff failed to establish any cause of action to have warranted his approaching the court on the issue because he did not establish that he was directly affected by the provision.
The Court of Appeal subsequently struck out the suit marked: FHC/UM/CS/26/2022 which Edede had filed before the Umuahia court.
