FHC Abuja: PDP Kwara LG Elections Nullification Dismissed, Court Lacks Jurisdiction

• The Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed the Peoples Democratic Party's (PDP) suit seeking to nullify the Kwara local government elections.
• Justice Peter Lifu ruled that the amended suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1061/2024, transformed from a pre-election to a post-election challenge, which the court lacked jurisdiction to hear.
• The court found the PDP's action to be an abuse of court process, as the party had already participated in the elections, filed 24 unsuccessful petitions, and failed to appeal them.
• The judge also determined that the amended claim was statute-barred due to its timing.
• This ruling emphasizes the strict procedural requirements and jurisdictional limits for challenging election results in Nigeria.

This ruling reinforces the strict procedural requirements and jurisdictional boundaries for challenging election results in Nigeria, emphasizing that the Federal High Court cannot assume the powers of an election tribunal through an amended suit.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected a legal challenge by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) aimed at nullifying the recent local government elections in Kwara State. Justice Peter Lifu presided over the case, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/1061/2024, which was brought against both the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Kwara State Independent Electoral Commission (KWASIEC). The court's decision effectively ended the PDP's attempt to overturn the election results.

Initially, the PDP's lawsuit sought to prevent KWASIEC from conducting the council elections altogether and to stop INEC from providing the state electoral body with the voters' register. However, despite an earlier court order directing that the status quo be maintained, the elections proceeded as planned. Rather than abstaining from the electoral process, the PDP chose to participate in the polls.

Following their participation, the party subsequently filed approximately 24 petitions challenging the outcomes of these elections. All these petitions were ultimately dismissed, and the PDP did not pursue any appeals against these decisions. It was only after these unsuccessful attempts through the established election petition process that the PDP returned to the Federal High Court, seeking to amend its original suit to introduce a new claim for the nullification of the elections.

Justice Lifu's ruling highlighted several critical procedural and jurisdictional issues that led to the dismissal. A primary concern was that the PDP's amended suit fundamentally altered the nature of the action, transforming it from a pre-election challenge into a post-election dispute. The judge emphasized that such an amendment could not grant the Federal High Court the authority typically reserved for an election tribunal. "The court lacked jurisdiction to start as an election tribunal," Justice Lifu declared, underscoring the distinct roles of different judicial bodies in electoral matters.

Furthermore, the court found that the timing of the amended claim presented another significant legal hurdle, as it had become statute-barred. Justice Lifu noted that once the suit was reconstituted with the new relief, it fell outside the statutory limitation period for such actions. The court also upheld the defendants' preliminary objection, agreeing that the PDP's continued pursuit of the matter constituted an abuse of court process.

The judge explained that the PDP had voluntarily engaged in the elections, pursued the designated election petition route, and failed in all its efforts. Consequently, it was deemed impermissible for the party to attempt to recover remedies through an amended originating summons that were no longer available to it after the conclusion of the election petition process. This conduct, according to the court, amounted to an attempt to re-litigate, through a different avenue, issues that should have been exclusively addressed before the appropriate election tribunals.

This ruling reinforces the strict procedural requirements and jurisdictional boundaries for challenging election results in Nigeria, emphasizing that the Federal High Court cannot assume the powers of an election tribunal through an amended suit. The dismissal of the PDP's case serves as a crucial reminder for political parties and legal practitioners regarding the proper forum and timing for electoral disputes. It clarifies that once a party has chosen to participate in an election and subsequently pursued the election petition process, the avenues for challenging the outcome become narrowly defined.

The judgment underscores the principle that electoral disputes must follow specific legal pathways, designed to ensure efficiency and finality in the electoral process. Attempting to re-litigate matters in a different court after exhausting or failing to appeal decisions from the designated tribunals will likely be viewed as an abuse of court process. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the established legal framework for pre-election and post-election challenges, preventing litigants from forum shopping or indefinitely prolonging electoral contests through procedural maneuvers.

This ruling reinforces the strict procedural requirements and jurisdictional boundaries for challenging election results in Nigeria, emphasizing that the Federal High Court cannot assume the powers of an election tribunal through an amended suit. Lawyers advising on electoral disputes must carefully consider the proper forum, timing, and nature of the relief sought to avoid dismissal for abuse of process or lack of jurisdiction.

Source: Original reporting via Punch Newspaper