The Jurisdictional Conflict between the Federal High Court and Election Tribunals Did the Supreme Court Err in OBI V INEC

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court decision in Peter Obi v Independent National Electoral Commission² was greeted with divergent responses. Some applauded the decision while others criticized the decision on various grounds, including the ground that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The controversy following the decision brings to the fore the jurisdictional conflict between the High Courts, especially the Federal High Court, and the Election Tribunals.

Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. The jurisdiction extends to any action challenging the administration of the federal government or any of its agencies, or seeking injunction against the Federal Government or any of its agencies or the interpretation of the constitution in relation to the Federal Government or any of its agencies. On the other hand, the constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on Election Tribunals to determine the question of whether any person has been validly elected to an office or not and whether the seat of any person elected under the Constitution has become vacant or not. The Constitution further confers on the Court of Appeal final appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from Election Tribunals on whether the seat of a member of the State House of Assembly or Governor or Deputy Governor has become vacant.

The main issue in the case of Obi v INEC was whether the tenure of a Governor who succeeded in election petition begins to run from the date he was sworn in or the date he ought to have been sworn in. The question then is whether the Federal High Court as opposed to the Election Tribunals has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.