FACT FILE: Supreme Court established 25% in FCT mandatory to win presidential election in Buhari vs Obasanjo
Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.
More evidence has shown that it is mandatory to get at least 25 per cent of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, in order to win the presidential election in Nigeria.
The latest evidence arose from another scrutiny of the Supreme Court ruling in the case between Muhammadu Buhari, the then candidate of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and Olusegun Obasanjo, the then Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) candidate, on Friday, July 15, 2005, by Mr. Dokun Ojomo.
According to Mr. Ojomo, in the ruling, the apex court had upheld that presidential candidates must win 25 per cent of all votes cast in 24 states, as well as the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
Commenting on the outcome of the 2003 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) and the 25% in FCT saga, Ojomo wrote:
“After the 2003 elections, Buhari called for the cancellation of the election since Obasanjo failed to win in FCT but it was resolved that winning the FCT is not mandatory but having 25% in FCT is very mandatory.
“President Obasanjo back then satisfied the basic requirements of 25% in 24 States AND 25% in FCT also having the highest number of total valid votes cast.
“It was also stated that if there was no election in Abuja or election in Abuja was canceled, the election will automatically go into re-run regardless of satisfying other requirements which validated the importance & exceptional factor of FCT in our constitution.
“It was established in 2003 by those justices that 25% in FCT is as mandatory as having highest number of total valid vote cast to win an election in Nigeria.”
He noted that the Justices that resolved the FCT case between Obasanjo and Buhari were Justice Mohammed Lawal, Justice Idris kutigi, Justice Denis Edozie, Justice Sam Odemwingie, Justice Aloysius Iyorgyer, Justice Umaru Kalgo, and Justice Ignatius Chukwudi.
In its publication on April 12, 2023, News Band had reported more clarity regarding the correct interpretation of ‘the 25 per cent of all votes cast’ in the Federal Capital Territory.
In the Supreme Court ruling, the apex court had upheld that presidential candidates must win 25 per cent of all votes cast in 24 states, and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
One of the cruxes of the matter for determination in Buhari v. Obasanjo [2005] was Section 134(1 & 2) of the Constitution which said:
“(1) A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected, where, there being only two candidates for the election:
(a) he has the majority of votes cast at the election; and,
(b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
“(2) A candidate for an election to the office of President shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election: (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”
The report stated:
“The trial of the petition, which lasted about 15 months, began before the Court of Appeal (Abdullahi, PC.A., Mahmud Mohammed, J.C.A. (as he then was) Nsofor and Tabai, C.A) on the 25th day of September, 2003, ended on the 20th day of December, 2004.
“The court heard the 139 witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd petitioners (1st and 2nd appellants/cross-appellants), the 100 witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd respondents (1st and 2nd respondents/ appellants) and the 116 witnesses called by the 3rd and 6th to 268th respondents (3rd and 6th to 268th respondents/cross respondents), being altogether 355 witnesses.
“In the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Tabai, J.CA., (with Nsofor J.C.A. dissenting,) the court held as follows:
Related Posts
“”I have considered the evidence in support of the allegations in each of the 14 States which elections (sic) were questioned. And in the exercise I have cancelled the election in Ogun State, some Local Government Areas, Wards and Units.
“”The question is the effect (sic) of this annulment on the election in the country. For the determinations (sic) of this question I refer to the provisions of section 134(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“”Section 134(2) of the Constitution provides:
““A candidate for an election to the office of president shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election — (a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and (b) he has not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”
“”This provision appears clear to me. Where a candidate wins the highest number of votes cast in at least two-thirds of the 36 States in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, he is deemed to be elected…
“”I do appreciate any ambiguity in the provisor and even if there was one, this court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible. (See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition, Chapter 10).
“”In my view, it would lead to absurdity and manifest injustice to nullify the election for the entire nation because of the nullification of the election of one State, some Local Government Areas, Wards and Units.
“”Such a devastating result could hardly have been contemplated by the framers of the Constitution.
“”Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd appellants/cross-appellants, Chief Mike Ahamba, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, in the amended brief of argument filed on their behalf, has formulated 18 issues for determination to cover the 41 grounds of appeal filed.””
Read the full story below:
