By Okoi Obono-Obla
Some persons, one of such is Gershom Igonibi Kelvin, have argued that the Supreme Court decision in David Lyon & Anor v. Diri & Ors (2020) can be used as authority in Atiku Abubakar v. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (2023). With respect, I vehemently disagree.
The principle of judicial precedent — stare decisis — is only invoked when the facts of the previous case are on all fours with those of the subsequent case. The facts of Lyon’s case are materially different.
The Lyon case was not premised on a discrepancy in the name borne by the candidate on his NYSC discharge certificate. It was premised on discrepancies and outright forgery in the school certificates and other documents submitted by his running mate, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo.
In that case, the Supreme Court per Ejembi Eko, JSC, sacked the Governor-elect barely 24 hours to his inauguration because his Deputy presented forged certificates to INEC. His Form CF001 contained false information contrary to Section 182(1)(j) of the Constitution and Section 31(5)&(6) of the Electoral Act, 2010. The Court then held that by virtue of Section 187 of the Constitution, the ticket was a joint ticket and the disqualification of the deputy “infected” the entire ticket.
The Atiku case is fundamentally different. The issue was an alleged discrepancy in the name on the NYSC certificate. An NYSC discharge certificate is not a constitutional requirement to contest for President under Section 131 or for Governor under Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). What the Constitution penalizes is presentation of false information to aid qualification under Section 182(1)(j) and Section 137(1)(j).
In short, one is forgery of academic certificates to aid qualification by a running mate which vitiated a joint ticket; the other is an alleged discrepancy in a document that is not even a constitutional requirement for the office.
Therefore, the doctrine of judicial precedent does not apply. The facts are not the same, the constitutional provisions are not the same, and the nature of the alleged infraction is not the same.
