The genesis of the ongoing local government election crisis in Osun State stems from a jurisdictional overreach by the Federal High Court, according to prominent legal voices. The crux of the issue lies in the Federal High Court’s acceptance and adjudication of a case filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the conduct of local government elections in Osun State. This initial intervention, deemed inappropriate by legal experts like Afam Osigwe, SAN, President of the Nigerian Bar Association, set in motion a series of legal challenges and counter-challenges that have culminated in the current impasse. The argument centers on the principle that matters pertaining to local government elections, being a state affair, fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the State High Court, not the Federal High Court.
The PDP’s original suit, filed in 2022, alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 in the conduct of the local government council elections by the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSIEC). The Federal High Court, in a judgment delivered on November 25, 2022, sided with the PDP, nullifying the elections and ordering the elected council chairmen to vacate their offices. This decision, however, was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal, which faulted the PDP for failing to file a valid originating process, thereby invalidating the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction in the matter. The Appellate Court’s decision effectively reaffirmed the principle that the Federal High Court lacked the authority to adjudicate on local government elections.
The subsequent actions of OSIEC further complicated the situation. Despite the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, advising against it, OSIEC conducted fresh local government elections on February 22nd. This action, taken in a legally ambiguous environment, ignited further controversy and deepened the existing political tensions. The Attorney General’s advice, rooted in the ongoing legal proceedings and the need for clarity on the appropriate jurisdiction, seemingly went unheeded, further underscoring the complexities of the situation.
Osigwe’s criticism highlights the fundamental concern regarding the Federal High Court’s involvement in a matter outside its purview. He questioned the court’s authority to pronounce on the validity of laws concerning local government elections, emphasizing that such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State High Court. This jurisdictional overstep, he argues, is the root cause of the current crisis. The Federal High Court, by entertaining the initial suit, created a legal quagmire that has led to confusion and conflicting interpretations of the law.
The central question raised by Osigwe revolves around the legal professionals involved in the case. He questioned why senior lawyers filed such cases in the Federal High Court, knowing that it lacked jurisdiction. This line of questioning points to a potential lapse in professional judgment or a deliberate attempt to exploit legal loopholes. The acceptance of such cases by the Federal High Court, despite the clear jurisdictional boundaries, further compounds the issue. This raises questions about the court’s internal vetting processes and its adherence to established legal principles.
The Osun State local government election crisis serves as a stark reminder of the importance of respecting jurisdictional boundaries within the Nigerian legal system. The Federal High Court’s initial intervention, though later overturned, created a legal precedent that has had far-reaching consequences. The subsequent actions by OSIEC, despite legal advice to the contrary, further exacerbated the situation. This case highlights the need for greater clarity and adherence to jurisdictional principles to prevent future legal conflicts and ensure the smooth functioning of the electoral process at all levels of government. The role of legal practitioners in upholding these principles is also crucial, and Osigwe’s critique underscores the need for greater diligence and adherence to established legal norms when filing cases. Ultimately, the resolution of this crisis requires a clear reaffirmation of jurisdictional boundaries and a commitment to upholding the rule of law.
