The Supreme Court on January 13, 2023, solidified Umar Namadi’s path to the Jigawa State governorship, confirming the APC primary and ending a challenge to his victory.
This wasn’t just another legal decision; it echoed a recurring theme in Nigeria’s political narrative where intra-party squabbles often spill into the judiciary. For decades, the courts have become both battleground and arbiter for ambitious politicians vying for control, turning internal party democracy into a public spectacle.
The legal gauntlet: Aliyu’s challenge to the Jigawa APC primary
The Jigawa APC primary dispute, though resolved, highlighted how deep these fault lines can run within even dominant political parties.
The journey to the Supreme Court began on May 26, 2022, when the APC conducted its gubernatorial primary election in Jigawa State. Umar Namadi, then the Deputy Governor, emerged victorious with a commanding 1220 votes, surpassing eight other contenders. But his win was quickly challenged by Hon. Faruku Adamu Aliyu, a former member of the House of Representatives, who refused to accept the outcome.
Aliyu’s grievance wasn’t minor. He sought an array of reliefs, approximately eight in total, from the courts. Among his primary demands was an audacious request: for the judiciary to declare that the ruling APC effectively had no governorship candidate in Jigawa State for the 2023 general elections due to alleged irregularities in the primary process.
It was a bold move, designed to unravel the party’s carefully laid plans.
His initial suit landed before the Federal High Court in Dutse, where Justice Hassan Dikko presided. On September 13, 2022, Justice Dikko delivered a verdict that struck down Aliyu’s challenge.
The court ruled that Aliyu’s suit “lacked merit” and was “hereby dismissed,” citing his failure to prove his case with credible evidence and, crucially, a lack of locus standi, meaning he didn’t have the legal right or standing to bring the case forward.
Undeterred, Hon. Faruku Adamu Aliyu pressed on, taking his appeal to the Court of Appeal in Kano. A three-member panel, led by Justice Ita Mbaba, meticulously reviewed the arguments. On November 4, 2022, the appellate court unanimously echoed the lower court’s sentiment, dismissing Aliyu’s appeal as “unmeritorious” and reaffirming Namadi’s nomination as the legitimate candidate.
It was another significant hurdle cleared for the APC and its preferred candidate.
But the final arbiter remained the Supreme Court in Abuja. Even after two losses, Aliyu pursued his case to the highest judicial body in the land. This persistence is a hallmark of many Nigerian political disputes, where litigants often exhaust every legal avenue available, regardless of earlier rulings. The expectation of a different outcome, however slim, often drives these prolonged battles.
Namadi’s contested mandate affirmed
When the Supreme Court finally heard the appeal, the political landscape was already tense, with general elections drawing closer. A five-member panel of justices deliberated on the intricate details of the case. The judgment, prepared by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun and read by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, definitively sided with the lower courts.
The Supreme Court concluded that Hon. Faruku Adamu Aliyu’s appeal, like those before it, “lacked merit.” They found he had “failed to prove the declarative reliefs he sought,” effectively ending his legal challenge once and for all. The court also struck out Namadi’s cross-appeal, ensuring the focus remained squarely on the validity of the primary election itself.
For Umar Namadi, the Supreme Court’s ruling was more than just a legal victory; it was a vindication of the party’s internal democratic process and his emergence as its flagbearer. The journey from Deputy Governor to gubernatorial candidate, though confirmed by party delegates, required judicial endorsement. This legal affirmation cleared any lingering doubts about his eligibility to contest the general elections.
The path through the courts is a familiar one for many Nigerian politicians, where internal party mechanisms are often seen as battlegrounds rather than mere selection processes. Namadi’s case underscores the judiciary’s critical role in resolving these disputes. It demonstrated that even with internal party consensus, a candidate’s legitimacy can still hinge on the final pronouncements of the courts.
A familiar pattern: courts and party politics
The Jigawa APC primary saga isn’t an isolated incident; it’s a symptom of a much larger, historical trend in Nigerian politics. Since the return to democratic rule in 1999, and even before, political parties have grappled with internal dissent, often manifesting as legal challenges to primary election outcomes.
These challenges reflect deep-seated issues within party structures, including allegations of imposition, irregularities, and a struggle for control over party machinery.
The concept of locus standi, so central to Justice Dikko’s initial dismissal, plays a critical role in limiting who can challenge election results. It demands that a litigant demonstrate a direct, sufficient, and peculiar interest in the subject matter of the litigation.
This legal principle aims to prevent frivolous lawsuits and ensure that only genuinely aggrieved parties can approach the courts, but its application is often contentious, shaping electoral outcomes as much as votes themselves.
Historically, the judiciary has often found itself reluctantly drawn into the internal affairs of political parties. While many argue that parties should be allowed to manage their own affairs, the inherent public interest in elections and the constitutional rights of aspirants often compel judicial intervention. This delicate balance between party autonomy and judicial oversight is a recurring tension, shaping the very nature of Nigerian democracy.
We’ve seen similar scenarios play out across different elections and political cycles, from gubernatorial contests to presidential primaries. The courts, in these instances, don’t just interpret the law; they effectively help define the boundaries of internal party democracy and legitimacy.
Their rulings, like the one in the Jigawa APC primary, become foundational precedents for future electoral battles, influencing how aspirants and parties navigate the complex terrain of nominations.
Beyond the verdict: unity and future contests
The Supreme Court’s judgment brought a palpable sense of relief to the All Progressives Congress leadership in Jigawa State. Hon. Aminu Ahmed, the state’s APC Chairman, wasted no time describing the Federal High Court’s initial verdict as a “victory for democracy,” setting the tone for official party reactions. His words underscored the party’s desire to move past the legal wrangling and consolidate its strength.
Then Governor of Jigawa State, Alhaji Muhammad Badaru Abubakar, echoed this sentiment following the Supreme Court’s final ruling. He hailed it as a “victory for all APC family,” extending a conciliatory hand even to the challenger. Abubakar commended Hon.
Faruku Adamu Aliyu for accepting the judgment, a crucial step towards fostering internal party unity after such a contentious legal battle. This public acceptance is often rare but vital in healing party wounds.
Indeed, Hon. Faruku Adamu Aliyu himself publicly accepted the Supreme Court’s decision. This act of statesmanship was significant, as it signaled an end to the internal feud and a pivot towards collective party goals. He vowed to support not only Umar Namadi, the now-affirmed governorship candidate, but also Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the APC presidential candidate, demonstrating a commitment to the party’s broader aspirations.
But while the 2023 gubernatorial primary challenge is settled, the echoes of such disputes reverberate. Currently, a Federal High Court in Dutse is hearing another suit challenging an APC primary election, this time for the Hadejia/Auyo/Kafin Hausa Federal Constituency for the upcoming 2027 general elections.
This ongoing case serves as a stark reminder that the cycle of internal party challenges and judicial interventions remains a constant feature of Nigeria’s political landscape.
The enduring role of the judiciary in Nigerian elections
The affirmation of Umar Namadi’s candidacy by the Supreme Court serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary’s outsized and often decisive role in Nigerian electoral politics. In a system where party primaries are frequently fraught with allegations of foul play, the courts have become the ultimate referees. Their judgments don’t just settle disputes; they shape the integrity and perception of democratic processes within parties.
This reliance on the judiciary, while ensuring fairness, also places immense pressure on judges and the legal system. It highlights a continuing struggle within Nigerian political parties to establish truly transparent and undisputed internal democratic processes. When internal mechanisms fail to inspire confidence, aspirants will inevitably seek recourse in the courts, prolonging electoral cycles and diverting focus from governance.
The Jigawa case, in particular, illustrates how judicial pronouncements can either stabilize or destabilize political parties on the eve of major elections. A different outcome could have plunged the APC in Jigawa into crisis, potentially affecting its performance in the general elections. The finality of the Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, offered a critical measure of stability, allowing the party to present a united front.
Ultimately, the story of the Jigawa APC primary is a microcosm of a larger national narrative. It is a narrative where the judiciary, through its meticulous application of the law and careful consideration of electoral processes, continually redraws the lines of political contestation.
Today, as in the past, the courts remain a pivotal arena where the fate of political ambitions and, by extension, the trajectory of governance, are often decided.
