APC Convention: Court’s Decision On Electoral Act Booby Trap To Nullify APC’s Convention – Lawyer

As controversy continued to trail court’s decision that ordered the deleting of Section 84(12) from the electoral act, an Abuja-based lawyer, Mr Kayode Ajulo, has warned the ruling All Progressives Congress that its convention may be nullified if it allowed political appointees to vote.

In a carefully worded statement on Saturday evening, Ajulo described the court judgment on Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022 as a “booby trap” for APC.

This followed the request that the section be deleted by the federal government by the Federal High Court, in Abia State on Friday.

Sequel to the signing of the amended electoral act, the president had sought the cooperation of the national assembly that the section be deleted once he signs.

However, both houses ruled against the gentleman’s agreement with the president.

This was after a court’s decision in Abuja barred the national assembly from tampering with a law it had already passed and signed into law by the President.

Section 84(12) of the Act states that, “No political appointee at any level shall be a voting delegate or be voted for at the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for any election.”

Expressing his view on the matter, Ajulo said, “Let us get a point clear, it is undoubted that Courts of Superior record by virtue of Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), have the power to declare an Act of the National Assembly unconstitutional, null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.

“Moreso, a plethora of authorities have established the principle that where a provision of an enactment by the legislature conflicts with the express provision of the Constitution, the said extant law shall be declared null and void. That is the essence of S1(3) of the 1999 constitution as Amended. It provides that “If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this constitution, this constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

“It is however instructive to note that in cases where legislation is contested for being in conflict with provisions of the Constitution, the courts have only one duty: “to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former… See the cases of U.S. v. Butler et al (1936) 297 U.S 1 (and Marwa & Ors v. Nyako & Ors (1980) LPELR-2936 (SC).

“In the case under review, the learned trial judge noted that the provision of Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act is inconsistent with the provision of Sections 66 (1) (f), 107(1) (f), 137 (1) (f) and 182 (1) (f) of the Constitution.

“Suffices to state that a pensive justapoxing of the Sections of the Constitution relied upon by the learned trial judge require persons employed in the public service of either the federal government or state governments.

“Based on the doctrine of judicial precedents, it is quite apposite that the Appellate Court will set aside the decision of the trial court.

“For those who have mind to think, the perdurable questions to ask include:
Why was the suit filed in far away Umaiha, Abia State? Why were the National Assembly and Independent National Electoral Commission not joined as parties to the suit?

“It is instructive to note that the Peoples Democratic Party including other prominent political parties have concluded its Convention if the All Progressives Congress should rely on the ephemeral judgment of the Court and proceed to permit political appointees to vote and contest at its primaries and conventions, same is a disaster going somewhere to happen.

“What readily comes to mind is the decision of the Supreme Court in Zamfara State where the Apex Court held that there were no validly elected candidates in the various elective position in the state from the APC.”