LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW – Selection of Traditional Rulers – Quorum Requirements – Effect of Participation of Disputed Kingmakers on Election Validity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There is disagreement with the Court of Appeal that the mere participation of these 3 disputed king-makers simpliciter would invalidate the whole election; and the failure of the 3 qualified king-makers to vote, for any reason, could also not invalidate the election because the stipulated quorum at the election was sustained.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"I also do not agree with the Court of Appeal that the mere participation of these 3 disputed king-makers simpliciter would invalidate the whole election. See Na-Gambo v. N.E.C. (1993) 1 NWLR (pt. 267)94. And the failure of the 3 qualified king-makers to vote, for any reason, could also not invalidate the election because the stipulated quorum at the election was sustained."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This reinforces Principles 534-536. Two situations don’t invalidate chieftaincy selection: (1) Disputed kingmakers’ participation: Mere participation of disputed kingmakers doesn’t automatically invalidate election—outcome analysis required (see Principle 534). (2) Qualified kingmakers’ non-voting: Failure of some qualified kingmakers to vote doesn’t invalidate election when quorum is sustained. “Simpliciter” means by itself alone—participation alone, without more, doesn’t invalidate. Both principles flow from quorum concept: if valid quorum exists and votes, selection is valid despite: disputed participants (if outcome unchanged when excluded), or absent qualified members (if quorum met). This serves: practical selection processes, preventing technical invalidation of valid outcomes, and focusing on substantive compliance. Courts assess: was quorum met? does exclusion of disputed votes change outcome? The principle prevents: automatic invalidation from disputed participation, invalidation based on some members’ absence, and formalistic defeats of substantially valid selections. What matters is: proper quorum present and voting, valid majority achieved, and outcome unaffected by any irregularities. This pragmatic approach ensures: chieftaincy selections aren’t easily overturned on technicalities, substantial compliance suffices, and focus remains on actual outcome validity.