By Sebastine Okafor, Ph.D.
A few days ago, various media platforms were filled with reports of the withdrawal of one of the gubernatorial aspirants of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Enugu State Chapter, Prof. Enenwannaji, following his alleged truce with one of his fellow aspirants, Sir Chinyeaka Oha. The Prof. is said to have emerged from what many described as an “illegal primary” conducted by the state chapter of the party, led by Dr. Johnpaul Anih, whom they claimed was not recognised. However, after a series of peace talks, he decided to step down for Sir Oha, whom he described in the media as his brother.
That act was seen by many as a welcome development, to the extent that many media houses reported that the crisis bedevilling the party was over. But, in reality, it may only be the beginning of the main crisis.
Where there are two allegedly disputed processes and one person decides to step down, the withdrawal of one does not, by itself, cure the alleged legal defects surrounding the process that produced the other. In law, a disputed process cannot simply become valid because one of its participants has withdrawn.
It is a well-known fact that the National Working Committee of the party did not conduct any primary election in the state, while the state faction recognised by INEC, led by Dr. Johnpaul Anih, conducted what it described as one of the best primary elections to be held by any opposition political party in the state.
Going by the legal questions surrounding the process, NDC may be heading into a deep electoral problem in Enugu State. The party, for instance, swore affidavits to protect some of its earlier fielded candidates, including Hon. Emeka Aba for Igboeze North/Udenu Federal Constituency, Barr. Agubuzo of Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency and Bishop Oscar Ossai of Enugu North Senatorial District, among others, before somehow removing them.
In those affidavits, the party allegedly confirmed that it did not conduct any primary, while filing a series of conflicting documents. In one document, the party stated that the chairman of the electoral committee, Chief Teddy Obey, conducted the primaries with his team. In another affidavit, the party denied that Chief Teddy Obey was the chairman of the electoral committee.
The reason for this is not far-fetched. Chief Obey is the Zonal Vice Chairman of the party in the South-East Zone and also a member of the 20-member National Selection Committee and Screening Committee. Chief Teddy’s alleged involvement in these different capacities has raised substantial questions about compliance with the party’s guidelines, especially where the party itself appears to have attempted to remove his name from the list of those who conducted the primary election.
It is also a known fact that, even where the party claims to have conducted a primary in Enugu, questions remain about the existence of a clear and verifiable list of electoral committee members who conducted the alleged primaries across the senatorial zones, federal constituencies and state constituencies.
This is important because the courts have repeatedly held that a party’s primary process must comply with the law, the Constitution of the party and its own guidelines. In APC v. Nelson & Ors (2023) LPELR-59758(CA), the Court of Appeal stressed that evidence must establish that the primary was actually conducted by the competent organ of the party before other issues surrounding it can have legal effect.
As it stands, the party has about 40 cases challenging the outcome of the primary in the Federal High Court, Enugu, and more than 11 doing the same at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
One clear position running through these disputes is the allegation that the NWC of NDC did not conduct any primary election in Enugu State and that even the primaries the party claims to have conducted are not supported by a clearly established INEC monitoring report.
The courts have recognised that the conduct of party primaries is not completely beyond judicial scrutiny where statutory or party rules are alleged to have been breached. In Mansur v. PDP & Ors (2023) LPELR-59791(CA), the Court of Appeal considered the legal consequences of an alleged failure to conduct a valid primary, while in Agi v. PDP, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the courts can intervene within the limited area created by electoral law when the nomination process is alleged to have violated the law or party guidelines.
Another angle to this is that, in some cases, the party would allegedly deny the involvement of the plaintiff in the pre-primary election process, claim that its candidate emerged through affirmation and still publish the names of those it claimed never participated, with the names appearing in certified copies of its primary election result sheets reportedly signed by the same Chief Obey whose involvement the party had denied.
These conflicting positions are not matters that can simply be wished away through political negotiations. They raise questions of evidence, credibility and the legal foundation upon which any candidate seeks to stand.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that the political party plays a central role in the sponsorship of a candidate. In Ozomgbachi v. Amadi & Ors (2018) LPELR-45152(SC), the Supreme Court addressed the relationship between political parties and their candidates in electoral contests.
It is a known fact that a series of allegations have been flying around about the party in Enugu, but the truth remains that you cannot build something on nothing. You cannot collect money from people, write names of candidates, create conflicting records and expect those affected not to seek justice.
Where a party wants its candidate to appear on the ballot, the foundation of that candidacy must be legally defensible.
A settlement between two aspirants may resolve a personal disagreement, but it does not automatically extinguish the rights of other aspirants who have approached the courts, nor does it erase questions concerning the legality of the primary process.
The courts have repeatedly treated the statutory and party-guideline requirements as relevant where a genuine aspirant challenges the nomination process. As the Court of Appeal noted in Labour Party v. Nnaji & Anor (2023) LPELR-59426(CA), disputes surrounding party nomination can turn on whether the party complied with the applicable legal and internal requirements.
As it stands, the party in Enugu State may find it difficult to escape the legal tussle in which it has allegedly found itself because just one successful suit out of the many pending cases could have serious consequences for its candidates and its participation in the election.
This is why the question is no longer simply whether Prof. Enenwannaji has withdrawn for Sir Chinyeaka Oha. The bigger question is whether the process that produced the candidate who remains can survive judicial scrutiny.
If a court finds that the relevant primary was not conducted by the competent organ, was not properly monitored or was otherwise not conducted in accordance with the Electoral Act and the party’s guidelines, the withdrawal of one aspirant cannot rescue the process.
In that situation, the real possibility is that NDC may be left without a legally sustainable candidate in Enugu State and, consequently, may not find its name on the ballot for the affected election.
The only potentially sellable candidate for the party in the state, therefore, remains Peter Gregory Obi, but even that political strength cannot substitute for compliance with the law.