ELECTORAL ACT; DECAMPING & MORE

An act of moving from one party to the other is known as cross carpeting, in the Nigerian terrain it is the act of joining an opposing party or other political party usually for the purposes, or conceding to another political camp’s policies while holding elective office under the auspices of another political party. This is also known as decamping.

The right to decamp from one party to the other is not restricted as it is the constitutional right of any member of a political party to decamp to another the fact that the person was elected by one party and he moved to another is irrelevant. In ABUBAKARE V. AG FEDERATION & ORS CA/A/23/07 where the vice president had joined another political party and there was a declaration of his office as vacant. The VP invoked the original jurisdiction of the CA. The question turned out on the effect of his declaration to another party, it came to be considered whether his loyalty to his party or the president was lost. It was held that his oath of allegiance was to the federal Republic of Nigeria that even if he was to be treated as an employee, his employers would be the electorate and his removal could only be by the electorate through its representatives in the National Assembly.

The qualification for an elective office in Nigeria includes the Nation Youth Service Corps which is considered mandatory and moreover the constitution FRN does not allow any law to invalidate the NYSC degree this was the decision of the court in AMBER OBI-ODU&ORS (2006)All FWLR(pt 337)537”557-8 CA, thus when it comes to holding political office the qualification is governed by section 177,182(1j) and 138 which require school certificate as the minimum qualification a candidate for governorship election.

The right to secure the vote of the voters is vested on the presiding officer, he/she is to keep order at his polling station and see that no person commits an offence by interfering with voters when recording their votes. The burden of proving election offences is the same as under civil law putting the burden on the party alleging the commission of an offence to prove the allegation beyond reason doubt as the onus lies with the party that asserts OGU V. EKWEREMADU& ORS (2005) All FWLR(PT260)1 @20 CA .Also in ADEDIJI & ANORS V. KOLAWOLE&ORS(2004)FWLR it was held that allegation of malpractices or corrupt practices in an election in favour of a candidate, must be shown to have the knowledge or consent acting under the candidates general or special authority with respect to the election.

For irregularities to affect the return of the candidates to an election, it must be shown that the manipulation adversely affected the results, moreover the burden of showing that the non compliance with the Electoral Act is of such nature to have affected the results of the election is on the petitioner, petitioner must show that the votes cast in favour of respondents were invalid votes.

The status of a vote given to a disqualified candidate may be in certain circumstances be regarded as not given at all or thrown away and for so deciding scrutiny is not necessary, the disqualifying circumstance must be some positive and definite fact existing and established at the time of poll so as to lead to the fair interference of wilful perverseness on the part of the electors voting for the disqualified person.

To be continued....................

Thank you.

Oyenike Alliyu-Adebiyi LLB(hons)BL