It necessarily has to be so because, except where a person is shown to be privy of another as recognised by law, no man can be punished for the actions or sins of another. That is the crux of the issue here. It is whether the Petitioners, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and his Political Party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, can be properly described as privies of the Governments of Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo and Sokoto States who undisputedly instituted Suit No SC/CV/354/2023 against the Attorney General of the Federation before the Supreme Court of Nigeria. That question can only get a negative response, for the Government of a State, regardless of the political party platform on which its Executive Governor is or was elected, represents all shades of opinion in the State, including even those who may not belong to any political party at all. In fact, a State Government is not even bound nor obliged to take instructions from the political party of the Governor. Interestingly, our Law Reports are also replete with cases where State Governments elected on the same political party platform with the Federal Government have repeatedly sued the Federal Government at the Supreme Court. A good example is the recent New Currency Change case that was instituted by the Attorneys General of Kogi, Kaduna and Zamfara States against the Federal Government, even as both parties were APC Governments. In that situation, one wonders where counsel would place this proposition of privity by affinity.
— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Atiku v PDP (CA/PEPC/05/2023, 6th of September, 2023)
