Okoi Obono-Obla|24 November 2015|6:37am
I have read the essay titled “I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, BY HISTORY JUST REPEATED ITSELF” written by the erudite Princewill Odidi (my great friend whom I am well pleased) in which he strongly proposed that the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the celebrated case of See Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi V. INEC (No. 1) (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.106) 42 should be invoked to deal with the challenge thrown by the sudden death of Prince Abubukar Audu, the APC Governorship candidate (who dropped dead on the 23rd November, 2015) after the Independent National Electoral Commission had declared the Governorship election he (Prince Audu) contested on the 22nd November, 2015 inconclusive.
Consequently INEC ordered a supplementary election. I stoutly disagreed with the proposition of Princewill Odidi because the facts and circumstances of the case of Rt. Honourable Rotimi Amaechi’s are diametrically opposed to the facts and circumstances of Prince Audu’s case. So it cannot be a precedent for the challenge and conundrum thrown by the death of Prince Audu and its consequences on the supplementary election ordered by INEC.
In See Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi V. INEC (No. 1) (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.106) 42, the Supreme Court held that votes scored in an election concerning the office of the Governor of Rivers State belongs to Peoples Democratic Party (not the candidate, Celestine Omehia who was wrongly nominated by the PDP even though he did not participate in the primary election conducted by the PDP to nominate its flag bearer for election). Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that it was Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi who should have been nominated to be the Governorship candidate of the PDP in the governorship election in the State. The Supreme Court accordingly declared Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi as the duly elected Governor of Rivers State (even though he never contested the election).
Under the doctrine of Stare Decisis (judicial precedent), lower Courts are bound by the theory of precedent. Now, a precedent is an adjudged case or decision of a higher Court considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law. Courts' attempt to decide cases on the basis of principles established in prior cases. Thus prior cases which are close in facts or legal principles to the case under consideration are called precedents. The two cases (the one under consideration and the other to be used as precedent) must be close in facts- the facts must be similar for the doctrine to apply. So, it follows that See Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi Vs. Celestine Omeihia is not applicable and relevant to the facts of Prince Audu’s case.
I submit that the votes scored by the APC in the Kogi State Governorship election have become irrelevant after the candidate (Prince Audu) that flew the flag of the Party suddenly died. The APC nor its Deputy Governorship candidate or running mate of late Prince Audu cannot inherit those votes either.
Votes scored by a candidate in an election are not a property that is inheritable. The APC cannot therefore inherit the votes scored by a dead man. A dead man has no right, privilege or liability. In jurisprudence only the property of a dead man are transferable or can be inherited by his estate.
The proper thing to do is for INEC to invoke Section 36 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) for APC to replace or substitute the name of Prince Audu with another and order a fresh election.
Okoi Obono-Obla
Is a Legal Practitioner & Human Right Activist
