Are FCT Abuja Indigenes Superior To Other Nigerians?

By Sola Omoniyi, Lagos

Nigeria is a federal republic comprising 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, where the capital, is Abuja. In the interpretation of Nigeria’s law, it seems the indigenes of Abuja are superior to other Nigerians.

Amidst the ongoing controversies surrounding the presidential election that took place on February 25, 2023. Information has emerged regarding the proper interpretation of the phrase ‘compulsory 25 per cent of all votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

It is reported that on Friday, July 15, 2005, the Supreme Court made a ruling in a case that involved Muhammadu Buhari of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Olusegun Obasanjo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The Supreme Court has in Buhari vs Obasanjo 2005 confirmed that presidential candidates are required to secure at least 25% of the total votes cast in 24 states and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

The trial of the petition lasted about one year and three months, before the Court of Appeal (Abdullah, PC. A., Muhmud Mohammed, J. C. A. and Tabai, C. A,) from the 25th September 2023 to 20th December 2004. One of the issues 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 court heard the 139 witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd petitioners, the 100 witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd respondents, and the 116 witnesses called by the 3rd and 6th to 268th respondents (3rd and 6th to 268th respondents/cross respondents), making a total of 355 witnesses.

Buhari vs Obasanjo 2005 ruling in the leading judgement of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Tabai, J.CA., (with Nsofor, J.C.A. dissenting), the court held as follows:

“I have considered the evidence in support of the allegations in each of the 14 States in 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 determination (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 and 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. ‘They read as follows… “Issue No. 15: Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error by upholding the presidential election of 19/4/03 after invalidating the election of one state (Ogun) considering the provisions of Section 134(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (ground 6).” Addressing Issue No. 15, the Supreme Court contemplated: “Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error by upholding the Presidential Election of April 19, 2003, after invalidating the election of one state, Ogun State, considering the provisions of S. 134(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1997 Section 134(1) of the Constitution aforesaid says: “(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 are 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. “By the submission of the learned senior advocate, Chief Ahamba, because the election in the entire Ogun State was nullified in the majority judgement of the Court of Appeal, there no longer existed the basis for calculating the percentage, and the election of the first and second respondents was a violation of the Constitution.

“I have read time and again, without number, the provisions of S. 134(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) carefully. I cannot pinpoint any ambiguity in that long section.

“There is no need to seek extraneous aid in interpreting the section.” What Chief Ahamba has submitted is not only novel to statutory interpretation, I cannot find any solace in my surprise by the submission.

Our decisions on the interpretation of statutes are numerous and clear as to sections of the law written in plain, ordinary, and unambiguous words. (See Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1982) 3 NCLR 1.

“The invalidation of an election in any state without facts and figures will not overwhelm the result countrywide unless clear evidence is provided to justify such a question.

“This contention by the learned counsel cannot be supported by authorities very extant in our law reports, and I reject it outright.” Whereas the Supreme Court primarily ruled on the election held in Ogun State and its nullification, thereof, it acknowledged that the law, as ambiguous as it may seem to the ordinary man, treated the FCT as a separate state.