Amidst the controversies surrounding the presidential election held on February 25, 2023, more clarity has emerged regarding the correct interpretation of ‘the 25 per cent of all votes cast’ in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja....CONTINUE READING
The clarity came from a Supreme Court ruling in a case involving Muhammadu Buhari of the then All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Olusegun Obasanjo of the then Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on Friday, July 15, 2005…..CONTINUE READING
In its ruling, the apex court had upheld that presidential candidates must win 25 per cent of all votes cast in 24 states, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
One of the cruxes of the matter for determination in Buhari v. Obasanjo [2005] was Section 134(1 & 2) of the Constitution which said:
The trial of the petition, which lasted about 15 months, began before the Court of Appeal (Abdullahi, PC.A., Mahmud Mohammed, J.C.A. (as he then was) Nsofor and Tabai, C.A) on the 25th day of September, 2003, ended on the 20th day of December, 2004.
The court heard the 139 witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd petitioners (1st and 2nd appellants/cross-appellants), the 100 witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd respondents (1st and 2nd respondents/ appellants) and the 116 witnesses called by the 3rd and 6th to 268th respondents (3rd and 6th to 268th respondents/cross respondents), being altogether 355 witnesses.
In the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Tabai, J.CA., (with Nsofor J.C.A. dissenting,) the court held as follows:
“I have considered the evidence in support of the allegations in each of the 14 States which elections (sic) were questioned. And in the exercise I have cancelled the election in Ogun State, some Local Government Areas, Wards and Units.
“The question is the effect (sic) of this annulment on the election in the country. For the determinations (sic) of this question I refer to the provisions of section 134(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“Section 134(2) of the Constitution provides:“
“A candidate for an election to the office of president shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election — (a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”
“This provision appears clear to me. Where a candidate wins the highest number of votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, he is deemed to be elected…
“I do appreciate any ambiguity in the provisor and even if there was one, this court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible. (See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition, Chapter 10).
“In my view, it would lead to absurdity and manifest injustice to nullify the election for the entire nation because of the nullification of the election of one State, some Local Government Areas, Wards and Units.
“Such a devastating result could hardly have been contemplated by the framers of the Constitution.
“Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd appellants/cross-appellants, Chief Mike Ahamba, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, in the amended brief of argument filed on their behalf, has formulated 18 issues for determination to cover the 41 grounds of appeal filed.
“They read as follows…
“Issue No. 15:
Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error by upholding the presidential election of 19/4/03 after invalidating the election of one State (Ogun) considering the provisions of section 134(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (ground 6).”
Addressing Issue No. 15, the Supreme Court contemplated:
“Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error by upholding the Presidential Election of 19th April, 2003, after invalidating the election of one State, Ogun State, considering the provisions of S. 134(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 19997 Section 134(1) of the Constitution aforesaid says:
““(1) A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected, where, there being only two candidates for the election: (a) he has the majority of votes cast at the election; and (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. “(2) A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election:
“(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
“By the submission of the learned senior advocate, Chief Ahamba, because the election in entire Ogun State was nullified in the majority judgment of Court of Appeal there no longer existed the basis for calculating the percentage and the election of 1st and 2nd respondents was a violation of the Constitution.
“I have read time and again without number the provisions of S. 134(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) carefully. I cannot pinpoint any ambiguity in that long section. In interpretation of a statute once the words used are clear, ordinary meaning the words in it are given to them.
“There is no need to seek extraneous aid in interpreting the section. What Chief Ahamba has submitted is not only novel to statutory interpretation, I cannot find any solace in my surprise by the submission. Our decisions on interpretation of statutes are numerous and clear as to sections of law written in plain, ordinary and unambiguous words. (See Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1982) 3 NCLR 1.
“The invalidation of election in any state without facts and figures will not overwhelm the result countrywide unless clear evidence led to justify such question. There is none in this case. This contention by the learned counsel cannot be supported by authorities very extant in our law reports and I reject it outright.”
Whereby the Supreme Court primarily ruled on the election held in Ogun State and its nullification, thereof, it acknowledged that the law, as ambiguous as it may seem to the ordinary man, treated FCT as a separate state…..CONTINUE READING
