A constitutional lawyer, Jirgba Terfa Jirgba, has clarified that Thursday, October 8 judgment in the legal battle over the APC primaries in Gboko did not validate the alleged substitution of candidates by the party.
Jirgba, in his analysis of proceedings said the court declined to determine the substantive question of whether the alleged substitution of candidates was lawful or unlawful.
The case was instituted by Engr. Sesugh Kaaba, who had participated in the APC primaries in one of the constituencies in Gboko and emerged winner.
According to Jirgba, Kaaba approached the court after allegedly receiving information that his name and those of other successful candidates could be replaced with candidates loyal to the Senator George Akume camp. He subsequently obtained an interim order restraining the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from uploading or submitting candidates other than those who emerged from the primaries.
However, Jirgba said INEC had already received and published the list submitted by the APC National Secretariat before the order could be effectively served and enforced.
He said the court, in its judgment on Thursday, held that the claimant lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the action in the manner it was constituted, particularly as some of the candidates whose interests he purported to represent had rejected the representation and applied to have their names removed from the suit.
The lawyer also said the court found that there was insufficient legal and evidential basis for the action to proceed as a representative or collective suit.
Another factor, according to Jirgba, was that the subject matter of the case had subsequently become moot following INEC’s deregistration of the affected constituency, substantially changing the circumstances upon which the action was founded.
He stressed that the judgment should not be interpreted as a blanket judicial endorsement of the APC’s alleged substitution of candidates.
“The court did not make a blanket pronouncement validating the alleged substitution of candidates,” Jirgba said, explaining that the decision was substantially based on the competence and standing of the claimant, the failure to establish a proper representative action and the subsequent change in circumstances.
He further clarified that the judgment does not automatically affect other pending or future cases concerning the APC primaries, candidate substitution, nominations or related electoral disputes.
According to Jirgba, each case must be determined on its own facts, parties, pleadings, evidence, issues and reliefs sought.
The judgment, he said, therefore leaves other APC-related electoral disputes to be determined independently by the courts on their respective merits.
