PDP SUIT AGAINST APC CHAIRMAN, MAI MALA BUNI:EXAMINING THE CONCEPT OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND LOCUS STANDI

*PDP’S SUIT AGAINST MAI MALA BUNI: EXAMINING THE CONCEPT OF LOCUS STANDI AND CAUSE OF ACTION*
_BY A.B AKINLOSOTU_

*INTRODUCTION*
_Before any civil proceeding in the Nigerian legal setting can be properly commenced, there are certain vital preliminary issues that needs to be examined and addressed. Preliminary issues are important because in either a civil or criminal proceeding, litigation can be quite complex and preliminary issues help to mitigate the complexity of litigation and also examine certain legal issues and concepts in relation to the corpus of the proceeding. Examples of preliminary issues are cause of action and locus standi, these two concepts are important in the procedure of any civil proceeding and they must be addressed when raised._

*CAUSE OF ACTION*
Cause of action is the fact or combination of facts that gives a person the right to seek judicial redress as a result from some wrongful act or breach that has caused a person loss or damage.1 Cause of action can be described as the reason that justifies instituting an action against a person in court. It is the reason or reasons for an action. In the case of *_Lantang v. Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232_*, Lord Justice Diplock defined cause of action as:
_“A factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. The cause of action forms the foundation of any suit. It is the set of facts that make up the appropriate grounds for filing an action in court. It is a situation or state of facts that would entitle a person to sustain an action and give him right to seek a judicial remedy on his own behalf”_.

A cause of action might emanate from doing something or failure to do something, breach of duty, violation of rights and so on. In the case of *_Egbe v. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 47) 1_*, Oputa, J.S.C, stated that cause of action:
_“Is admittedly, an expression that defies precise definition. But, it can safely be defined as the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a right of action. It is the factual situation which gives a person a right to judicial relief.”_
The validity of a cause of action depends on the facts stated by the plaintiff in his writ of summons or statement of claim. Once a cause of action is invalid, the court will strike out such case. Irene Thomas & ors v. The most Revd. Olufosoye (1986) S.C 325 at 344.

On the 12th day of August 2021, the People’s Democratic Party filed a lawsuit against Gov. Buni at the Federal High Court. The Plaintiffs were the PDP, Umar Damagum and his running mate, Baba Aji, the PDP candidates for the post of Governor and Deputy Governor of Yobe State during the last Gubernatorial Election. They alleged that Governor Buni, while occupying the position of the Governor of Yobe State, was appointed as the Chairman of the All Progressives Congress’ Caretaker/Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) in June 2020, thereby violating the provision of the Constitution. The Plaintiffs relied heavily on Section 183 of the Constitution which states that:
_“The governor shall not, during the period when he holds office, hold any other executive office or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever.”_
In this particular case, this constitutes the cause of action, a constitutional violation. The Plaintiffs listed Governor Buni, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN), the Independent National Electoral Commission and others as the defendants in the originating summons registered as suit No FHC/ ABJ/CS/938/2021. Interestingly, Article 17(4) of the All Progressives Congress Constitution states that:
_“No officer in any organ of the Party shall hold executive position office in government concurrently.”_
The Plaintiffs urged the court to remove Governor Buni and immediately swear in their own candidate as the new Governor. The cause of action in this intriguing lawsuit stems from the appointment of a current serving Governor into another executive position in his political party, thereby violating section 183 of the Constitution and also Article 17(4) of the APC constitution. Also, the Plaintiffs relied partly on the judgment held in the case between Mr Eyitayo Olayinka Jegede and Oluwarotimi Odunayo Akeredolu. This case was regarding the last Governorship election in Ondo state. An earlier decision had been given in favour of the incumbent Governor, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, this decision was appealed by Eyitayo Jegede. His main argument was that the nomination of Akeredolu as the governorship candidate of APC cannot be regarded as valid because it was supervised by Buni who was occupying the position of the Governor of Yobe and also the APC Chairman at the same time. Mr Akeredolu won the case with a 4-to-3 split decision of the Supreme Court which was constituted by 7 judges as it was a constitutional issue. The Majority decision stated that Eyitayo Jegede lost because Buni was not added as a party to the suit and not because the argument was not a valid one. Conclusively, the cause of action in the suit between PDP and Buni can be described as a valid one and has laid the foundation for a valid lawsuit to look into the validity of the Governorship position in relation to the provisions of the Constitution.

*LOCUS STANDI*
Locus Standi is a Latin word that literally translates to “place to stand”. It connotes the legal right to appear in court or the legal right to bring an action to a court of law. Locus standi means a place of standing; standing in court. A right of appearance in a court of justice, or before a legislative body, on a given question.6 It is the legal capacity to institute an action in court and it is used interchangeably with terms like “standing” or “title to sue”. It is the legal ability to sue. Locus Standi is a very important concept in the Nigerian legal system as it relates to the right of persons to institute an action in court. Therefore when the court holds that an individual does not have locus standi to institute a particular action, such action is dismissed in court. The foundation of locus standi is deeply rooted in common law. Thus, under common law, a person can only institute an action in the court of law if he has sufficient and direct interest in the case at hand. The principle was created to prevent the court from wasting precious time and energy on frivolous suits in which the plaintiff had no substantial interest in the case. When the question of locus standi arises, a plaintiff must show that he has sufficient interest in the matter and that the decision of the court will affect his civil rights and obligations in a substantial way. Although, Locus standi is not expressly mentioned in the constitution, Section 46(1) provides that:
_“Any person who alleges that any of the provision of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to the high court in that state for redress. This section relates to fundamental rights contained in chapter IV of the Constitution.”_
The application of Locus Standi in Nigeria can be viewed from two contrasting approaches; the restrictive approach and the liberal approach. The restrictive approach stems from the common law foundation of locus standi, this means that an individual with no sufficient and personal interest in the matter cannot institute any action on it, and this was strictly applied in cases. The restrictive approach has been criticized for being too rigid as it led to a lot of cases being thrown out of court on the basis of locus standi. The restricted approach can be viewed through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of  _*Senator Abraham Ade Adesanya v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Anor. 8 (1981) 2 NCLR 358*_ The court held that Adesanya had no locus standi to institute the action in court. In this case, Bello J.S.C stated that:
_“It is only when the civil rights and obligations of the person who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court, are in issue for determination that the judicial powers of the court may be invoked. In other words, standing will only be accorded to a Plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected by the act complained of…”_
This means that for a plaintiff to have locus standi to institute an action he must show that his civil rights and obligations have been affected or is likely to be affected by the actions or inactions of another individual, as held in Adesanya’s case. This position of the court was quite rigid and did not give room for any form of public interest litigation.

However, in the case of *_Fawehinmi v. Akilu  (1987) NSCC 1266 at 1267_*, the court adopted a rather liberal and wider approach in the application of Locus standi. In this case the court held that Fawehinmi had the locus standi to institute an action in court, even though he had no personal interest in the matter. This position was further explained in the case of *_Alhaji Salihu Wukari Sambo v. Capt. Yahaya Douglas Ndatse (rtd) (2013) LPELR-20857_*   by Agube JCA. He stated that:
_“…it is also necessary to refer to the position of the Law in India which we ought to borrow a leaf from their Public Interest Litigation system where locus standi can be given to any person who writes a letter of complaint in the name of the People's Union for Democratic Rights to the Chief Justice, justifying the rationale of the complaint. Although public interest litigation is still at infancy in this country, recent decisions of the Supreme Court have tended to jettison the old concept of sufficiency of interest as the bases for conferment of locus standi in constitutional matters”._
This brought about the principle of public interest litigation, with the absence of sufficient and personal interest. It must however be noted that the liberal approach does not in any way dispose the restrictive approach in the application of Locus Standi.
In the suit between PDP and Buni, the Plaintiffs are the People’s Democratic Party, and its candidates that contested for the post of Governor and Deputy Governor during the last Governorship election in Yobe State. The plaintiff(s) have direct and sufficient interest in this lawsuit as they constitute the opposition to the Governor in question, they contested in the governorship election. Therefore, we can conclusively say that the plaintiffs have locus standi to institute this action in court. We should also bear in mind that this lawsuit is regarding the validity of the post of Governor of the state, the question of locus standi can be considered as a minor one as it is a suit that will affect the state as a whole in the long run.
*CONCLUSION*
Cause of action and Locus Standi can be described as legal tests that every legal action must pass through before it can be adjudicated upon in court. PDP’s lawsuit against Governor Mai Mala Buni has, in my opinion, passed both tests.