IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 2024   BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.      HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.        ADAMU JAURO.         JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA CHIEF OKECHUKWU AMBROSE AHIWE. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP).        AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. RESPONDENT DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI. LABOUR PARTY. APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1250 / 2023 JUDGMENT(DELIVERED BY  UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC) On 18th March 2023, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the first Respondent, conducted an election for the Governorship seat of Abia State. On the 22nd March 2023, it declared the second Respondent who was sponsored by the third Respondent as the winner of the election. The first Appellant sponsored by the second Appellant came second.  Dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, the Appellants on 11th April 2023 presented a petition challenging the return of the second Respondent on three grounds, to wit: (1) The non-qualification of the second Respondent. (2) Lack of majority of lawful votes cast, (3) Corrupt practices and non-compliance with provisions of Electoral Act, 2022. Hearing commenced on 26th July, 2023. The petitioners called 22 witnesses and tendered exhibits P1 to P191. The first and second Respondents called one witness each. The second Respondent tendered exhibits D1 to D16. The third Respondent did not lead evidence. On 6th October 2023, the Honourable Tribunal delivered a judgement dismissing the petition of the Appellants. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the lower court on 2nd December 2023 dismissed the appeal. Miffed, the Appellants have filed this appeal before the Apex Court. After exchange of briefs by parties, the Appellants, through their lead Counsel, Alade Agbabiaka, SAN, nominated these issues for determination in the brief filed on 23rd December 2023: Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the Honourable Tribunal’s decision that the Appellants failed to prove that the second Respondent was not qualified to contest the elections? Whether the Lower Court was right when it affirmed the striking out by the Honourable Tribunal of paragraph 30 to 44 of the petition on the ground that they are pre-election complaints? 3. Whether the decision of the lower Court on the matters of pleadings, evidence, and formulation of issues for determination in an appeal are correct in law and not perverse? Whether, in the particular circumstances of this case, the Appellants can be rightly said to have had a fair hearing and or a fair trial at the Honourable Tribunal.   J.T.U Nnodum, SAN, the lead Counsel to the first Respondent formulated these issues for determination in their brief of argument filed on 30 December 2023: (a) Whether the lower court was right when it affirmed the Tribunal’s decision that paragraphs 32 to 44 of the petition were incompetent being concerned with pre-election matters and, in the alternative, that the Appellants did not prove non-qualification of the second Respondent. (b) Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the Tribunal’s decision that PW4, PW16, PW17, PW18 and PW22 were incompetent witnesses and that the Appellants did not prove the second and third grounds of their Petition. (c) Whether the lower  court infringed on the appellant’s right to fair hearing in the determination of their appeal.   A.J OWONIKOKO, SAN, with his team representing the second Respondent, filed their brief of argument on 6th January 2024 and distilled these issues: Whether the Court of Appeal was not right when it affirmed the trial Tribunal’s decision, striking out paragraphs 30 to 41, 43 to 44 of the petition for being pre-election issues, and, in the alternative, ultimately dismissed the Appellants’ complaint on the merits against the qualification of the second Respondent to contest in the gubernatorial election held on 18th day of March 2023 for want of credible evidence in proof of same? Whether having regard to the prescription of the law on allegations of non-scoring of majority of lawful votes, corrupt practices and non-compliance, failure of the Appellants to (i) tender and demonstrate relevant documents, and (ii ) call necessary/ credible witnesses who can give direct evidence on the allegations, the Court of Appeal did not rightly affirm the decision of the trial Tribunal that the Appellants did not prove these allegations and establish how they substantially affected the outcome of the election? Whether upon proper consideration and resolution of all the relevant issues raised in the petition and on appeal before the lower court, the Court of Appeal infringed on the Appellants’ right to fair hearing when it affirmed the decision of the Election Tribunal which dismissed the petition for lacking in merit? DR ONYECHI IKPEAZU, SAN, on behalf of his legal team, representing the third Respondent, nominated its issues thus in the brief filed on 29th December 2023: Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the decision of the Tribunal striking out paragraph 30 to 44 of the Petition on the ground that the allegations of disqualification therein contained were founded on facts over which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Appellants failed to prove that the second Respondent was not qualified to contest the election. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the decision of the Tribunal that the Appellants abandoned the complaint against the striking out of the evidence of PW4, PW16, PW17 and PW22 by the Tribunal and failed to prove the acts of non-compliance and corrupt practices alleged in the Petition. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the Appellants did not identify the applications which they claimed the Tribunal failed to pronounce upon and did not show how the length of the second Respondent’s final written address occasioned a miscarriage of justice and affected the judgment of

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 2024   BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.      HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.        ADAMU JAURO.         JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA CHIEF OKECHUKWU AMBROSE AHIWE. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP).        AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. RESPONDENT DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI. LABOUR PARTY. APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1250 / 2023 JUDGMENT(DELIVERED BY  JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC) I had the advantage of reading the leading judgment of my learned brother, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC, before now. I wholly agree with his lordship’s reasoning and conclusion. The ratio of Oni v Oyebanji (2023) 13 NWLR (Pt 1902) 544, referred to by the Respondents, if applied to Issues Nos.1 and 2 of the Instant Appeal, as it should be, leads to the conclusion that once a person satisfies the criteria prescribed in Section 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, (as altered), such person becomes automatically qualified for election to the office of Governor. See also the cases of: Shinkafi v Yari (2016) 7 NWLR (PT 1511) 340; Jegede v. INEC (2021) 14 NWLR (PT 1797) 409. Section 177 (c), which provides that a person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State, if he is a member of a political party, and is sponsored by that political party, does not provide for consideration of how a political party arrives at the decision to sponsor a person as its candidate, or the validity of the decision to sponsor, or the validity of the sponsorship itself. The fact that a political party sponsored its member as its governorship candidate for the general election makes such a person automatically qualified for election to the office of Governor of the State. Any criterion not provided for in Section 177, or any factor not listed under Section 182, is not valid as a qualifying criterion under Section 177, or a disqualifying factor under Section 182. See A.P.P. v. Obaseki (2022) 13 NWLR (pt 1846) 1; Jegede v. INEC (2021) 14 NWLR (pt 1797) 409; Faleke v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (pt 1543) 61. I will leave it just at that. I concur with my learned brother and direct that the appeal, being devoid of merit be dismissed. The judgment of the lower court delivered on December 2, 2023, is hereby affirmed. I also abide by the order as to costs in the leading judgment.  Appeal dismissed. JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT COUNSEL: Alade Agbabiaka, SAN with Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, Prof. Paul Ananaba, SAN Uche Iheduwa, SAN and Chief Theo Nkure, Esq. for the Appellants. J.T.U Nnodum, SAN, with him, K.C Nwufo, SAN and E.A. John Nwosu, Esq. for the 1st Respondent. A.J Owonikoko, SAN appears with Prof J.O Olatake, SAN, Chief Hakeem Afolabi, SAN, Ken Ahia, SAN and Olusola A. Dare, Esq for the 2nd Respondent. Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN with Chief Umeh Kalu, SAN, Dr. Sunny Ajala, SAN, Echezona Etiaba, SAN and Valentine Offia, Esq for the 3rd Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 2024   BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.      HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.        ADAMU JAURO.         JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA CHIEF OKECHUKWU AMBROSE AHIWE. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP).        AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. RESPONDENT DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI. LABOUR PARTY. APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1250 / 2023 JUDGMENT(DELIVERED BY ADAMU JAURO, JSC) I had the opportunity of reading in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC. I am in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion contained therein, to the effect that the appeal is lacking in merit and ought to be dismissed. The nature of the contention of the Appellants that the second Respondent was not qualified to contest the election under challenge was outside the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the trial tribunal and the complaint was unproved. The Appellants placed heavy reliance on section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the allegation that the name of the second Respondent was not in the third Respondent’s register of members submitted to INEC before its primary election. However, there is nothing in section 77(3) of the Electoral Act that disqualifies a candidate whose name was not in the register of members submitted by his political party to INEC not later than 30 days before the date fixed for the party primaries, congresses, or convention. Neither a party nor court is allowed to import a statutory provision what is not contained therein. Another reason why the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint about the second Respondent’s qualification is the nature of the complaint, being issues of nomination and sponsorship of the second Respondent by the third Respondent, are firmly within the realm of a pre-election matter. See Section 285(14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended). It is now settled that it is only a member of a political party who was an aspirant that participated in the primary election that can challenge the sponsorship and nomination of the candidate who emerged from the primary election. See PDP V. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR – 60457 (SC). Assuming the Appellants had the locus standi to raise the issue, same had become statute barred at the time of the filing of the petition as, by dint of Section 285(9) of the petition, a pre-election matter must be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit. Furthermore, there is evidence that the second Respondent resigned his membership of APC before joining the third Respondent. For these reasons, and of course, the more detailed ones, adumbrated  in the lead judgment, I join my learned brother in dismissing the appeal.  Appeal dismissed. ADAMU JAURO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES:* Alade Agbabiaka, SAN with Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, Prof. Paul Ananaba, SAN Uche Iheduwa, SAN and Chief Theo Nkure, Esq. for the Appellants. J.T.U Nnodum, SAN, with him, K.C Nwufo, SAN and E.A. John Nwosu, Esq. for the 1st Respondent. A.J Owonikoko, SAN appears with Prof J.O Olatake, SAN, Chief Hakeem Afolabi, SAN, Ken Ahia, SAN and Olusola A. Dare, Esq for the 2nd Respondent. Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN with Chief Umeh Kalu, SAN, Dr. Sunny Ajala, SAN, Echezona Etiaba, SAN and Valentine Offia, Esq for the 3rd Respondent. e Offia, Esq for the 3rd Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 2024   BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.      HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.        ADAMU JAURO.         JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA CHIEF OKECHUKWU AMBROSE AHIWE. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP).        AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. RESPONDENT DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI. LABOUR PARTY. APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1250 / 2023 JUDGMENT(DELIVERED BY EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC) I had a preview of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Lord Justice, Uwani Musa AbbaAji, JSC. I completely agree with the reasoning, and conclusions, therein. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT Appearances: Alade Agbabiaka, SAN with Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, Prof. Paul Ananaba, SAN Uche Iheduwa, SAN and Chief Theo Nkure, Esq. for the Appellants. J.T.U Nnodum, SAN appears with Prof J.O Olatake, SAN, Chief Hakeem Afolabi, SAN, Ken Ahia, SAN and Olusola A. Dare, Esq for the 2nd Respondent. Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN with Chief Umeh Kalu, SAN, Dr. Sunny Ajala, SAN, Echezona Etiaba, SAN and Valentine Offia, Esq for the 3rd Respondent