There has been a false narrative being spread around deliberately by some analysts who didn’t go through the facts of the suit and the reliefs sought before the Federal High Court in APP .V. INEC & ORS in FHC/OS/CS/103/2022. The defendants in the suit were INEC and OSSIEC. At a later stage of the proceeding, some political parties, including the APC, APGA, and APM, joined the suit of their volition, a request the court granted. The suit was about conduct of local government election in breach of some provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022. It was also about the inconsistency between a Federal enactment and a state law with respect to local government election. It was about application of paragraphs 11 and 12, Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the FRN (as amended). It was about application of the Supreme Court decision in OSSIEC .v. ACTION CONGRESS which was determined by the apex court in the year 2010.
The reliefs sought were amongst others, a declaration that INEC being the constitutional and statutory Agency for the provision, keeping, updating and maintenance of voter’s register for use at any election including local government elections, cannot and must not release voters register to OSSIEC UNLESS and UNTIL the state Electoral body complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 in relation to notice of election as determined by the Supreme Court in OSSIEC. V. Action Congress, the effect of which is that any notice of local government election short of the length of period provided for in the Electoral Act, is null and void. The reliefs also agitated for an order prohibiting INEC from releasing voter’s register to OSSIEC UNLESS, and UNTIL there was compliance with the law. The court, in the end, found as a fact that the Notice of election issued by OSSIEC fell short of the provision of the Electoral Act, 2022, the Court then applied the Supreme Court decision in OSSIEC .V. ACTION CONGRESS to nullify the election. The court equally granted the reliefs against INEC.
It is noteworthy to highlight that construing a Federal enactment especially the Electoral Act, which provisions have expressly ousted the jurisdiction of the State High Court in matters having to do with any of its provisions thereof, has now become the exclusive business of the FHC. Moreover, reliefs touching on Voters register against INEC have to do with the Administrative and managerial functions of INEC, so it is only the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to make any pronouncement on voters register.
The opinion of some Lawyers, including the NBA President, regarding Osun local government matter before the FHC in 2022, stating that the FHC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter was, with due respect, not correct. It must be stated that the jurisdiction of the FHC was challenged by the defendants to the suit, and the Court resolved same in favour of the plaintiff in the matter. That finding was never challenged at the Court of Appeal even in the Notice of Appeal, which they filed but which they later abandoned before same was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 13th January, 2025.
In so far the provision of the Electoral Act, 2022, which is exclusively reserved for the FHC was in issue, moreover, the issue of updated voter’s register concerning INEC was also a central issue in the case, the jurisdiction of the FHC was well established. The NBA President ought to holistically review the facts of the case before giving his opinion, leading to a sweeping condemnation of the FHC and Lawyers. He ought to appreciate the whole facts and issues before making his opinion known. At any rate, the opinion of the NBA President was his alone, as same can never be the opinion of the entire Bar of the Nation.
The conclusion here is that the FHC had jurisdiction to entertain the matter brought before it in FHC/OS/CS/103/2022, APP .V. INEC, OSSIEC, APC, APM, APGA & ORS.
*Tunde Isola writes from Osogbo, Osun State.
