Supreme Court Confirms Ishaku as APC Candidate for Bwari in FCT Elections

On Monday, the Supreme Court confirmed Mr. Joshua Ishaku as the legitimate candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the chairmanship election set to take place on February 21 in the Bwari Area Council.

A five-member panel of the Supreme Court delivered a decisive four-to-one verdict that settled the dispute over the rightful candidate for the council.

In delivering the lead judgment, Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur annulled the majority ruling of the Court of Appeal in Abuja. That court had upheld a Federal High Court ruling which named Mr. Haruna Audi as the APC candidate. Justice Tukur instead affirmed the dissenting opinion of Justice Okon Abang from the appellate court, which had rejected the lower court’s decision and declared Ishaku as the rightful candidate.

According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Ishaku had sought redress from the Supreme Court after the appellate court sided with the judgment from the Federal High Court given by Justice Emeka Nwite.

In the ruling handed down on Monday, the Supreme Court stated unequivocally that Ishaku’s case was neither time-barred nor premature, noting that it did not pertain to the protected domain of internal party issues. The apex court found an error in the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the actions of the appellant were limited by statute.

The justices underscored that the records indicated the appellant had been denied the chance to present his case, thereby being denied a fair hearing.

Regarding the matter of internal party remedies, the court clarified that the principle of the “internal affairs doctrine” is not absolute. The justices emphasized that courts can intervene when party regulations are breached, particularly when statutory and constitutional rights under Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act are at stake.

Furthermore, the apex court articulated that it is inconsistent to require a declared winner of a primary election to exhaust internal dispute resolution methods that are intended for complaining aspirants. This obligation, the court stated, lies solely with the aspirant who did not win.

While the majority ruling of the Court of Appeal had previously been against his claims, Justice Abang’s dissenting opinion was ultimately validated by this ruling from the Supreme Court.