Eligibility to contest election into elective offices The provision of Section 318(1) was construed by the Court of Appeal in the case of BAYO v. NJIDDA (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 876) page 544 at 629H-630D, where Ogbuagu, J.C.A (as he then was) held: “The above provisions, are conjunctive and they qualify or mean “school certificate or its equivalent.” So, if any one of them is not present/ available, then, the candidate is out. Therefore, even if (i), (ii), (iii) and (d) are acceptable by or satisfactory to INEC and therefore, cannot be questioned in a tribunal as being final, the absence of (c), also disqualifies the candidate. I wish to point that unlike the provision in (b)-i.e. “(b) education up to secondary school certificate level,” or, in (c), it must be the obtaining or possession of a primary six school leaving certificate or its equivalent. It could be observed that in (b) there is no “or its equivalent”. In other words, as regards a secondary school certificate level, one does not have to pass the secondary school certificate examination. It is enough, in my view, that one attended a Secondary school and read up to secondary school certificate level i.e. without passing and obtaining the certificate. But in the case of (c), one must have passed and obtained the primary six school leaving certificate. It could be seen that the draftsman of these provisions, carefully chose the words.” Nzeako, J.C.A (as she then was) held at page 619 paras. G-H, in the above case, thus: “In effect a person seeking to become a candidate for an election to the House of Assembly of any state in the Federal Republic of Nigeria must possess at least one of the qualifications set out in (a) or (b) or (c) (supra) In the case of (c), he must in the first instance possess, primary six school leaving certificate or its equivalent, (in some states, there used to be primary 7 as the final class in Primary School), and in addition evidence of (i), (ii) and (iii) above all together. It follows that a person who is not educated up to school certificate or its equivalent, may still qualify for election to the House of Assembly of a state if he has primary six school leaving certificate plus evidence or fulfilling every one of the conditions in (i), (ii) and (iii). If the person possesses primary six certificate but fails to provide evidence of any of the above (i), (ii) or (iii), he does not qualify. In CHUKWU v. ICHEONWO (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt.600) page 587 at 596 paras. B-F, the Court of Appeal was faced with the interpretation of provisions of Section 99(1) of the Local Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 36 of 1998 which contained a similar definition of school certificate or its equivalent. In answer to the question, whether a candidate must possess/produce school certificate, in order to satisfy the requirement of being educated to the minimum level of school certificate or its equivalent, the court held thus: “it is erroneous to hold as learned counsel has argued that to satisfy the condition of educational qualification, the candidate must possess a Secondary School Certificate. The interpretation given by the tribunal on this issue of educational qualification is unassailable. I agree that since there is evidence that the 2nd Respondent sat for the School Certificate examinations in May/June 1975, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 10(c) of the Decree. While acquisition of sound education may be desirable to enable one discharge the functions of Chairman of a Local Government Council, it is not absolutely necessary that such a person must possess a Certificate to enable him function effectively.” The definition Section (Section 318(1)) also vests INEC with powers to determine a candidate’s literacy level. Under Paragraph (b), the capacity in which a candidate served in the private or public sector must be acceptable to INEC. The courses and training attended by a candidate must also be in Institutions acceptable to INEC. Finally, a candidate’s ability to read, write, understand and communicate in the English language must also be to the satisfaction of INEC. The key words in the definition Section are “acceptable” to and “satisfaction” of INEC. These words are subjective in the sense that where INEC is satisfied with a candidate’s training and qualifications or where the qualifications of a candidate are acceptable to INEC, it is doubtful if the decision of INEC can be challenged successfully by a candidate’s opponent. The words “to the satisfaction of” and “acceptable to”, in their ordinary grammatical meanings, acknowledge subjectivity on the part of INEC.
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:48:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015