HOT NEWS
Presidential tribunal: Buhari
wins in court
The Presidential Election on Thursday dismissed
the petition filed by the Hope Democratic Party
(HDP) challenging the victory of President
Muhammadu Buhari in the February 23 election.
NAN reports that the HDP prayed the tribunal to
set aside the presidential election of Feb. 23 on
the grounds that INEC did not follow conditions in
the Electoral Act before postponing the poll earlier
scheduled for February 16.
Adopting the HDP’s final address, its lead
counsel Mr Chukwunoyerem Njoku, informed the
Tribunal that because INEC did not follow the
conditions before postponing the election
unconstitutionally, a referendum was conducted in
line with the law and the presidential candidate of
the HDP, Mr. Ambrose Oworu, emerged winner of
the referendum with over 50 million votes.
He submitted that Nigerian citizens participated in
Feb. 16 referendum as required by law and urged
the tribunal to nullify the declaration of President
Muhammadu Buhari by INEC as president and in
his place, restore Owuru as the authentic winner.
However, Buhari, represented by Mr. Wole
Olanipekun SAN, urged the Tribunal to dismiss the
petition on the grounds that it is frivolous,
baseless and lacking in merit.
Olanipekun told the Tribunal that the petitioners
did not in any way adduce evidence on how the
referendum was conducted and who conducted it
in line with the provisions of the law.
He also said he had studied carefully the final
address of the HDP and its presidential candidate
and there was nowhere they made any case
against President Buhari.
Also adopting its final address, INEC through its
lead counsel, Mr. Yinus Usman, urged the Tribunal
to dismiss the petition with substantial cost to
serve as a deterrent to those who may wish to file
frivolous and baseless petitions in the 2023
elections.
Usman argued that the petition lacked merit
because the electoral body conducted an election
and not a referendum and that the claims of the
two petitioners were strange to the electoral
umpire.
The All Progressive Congress (APC) represented
by Mr. Akin Olujimi, in its final address,
demanded the dismissal of the petition for
lacking in merit.
2019 Imo guber: Court voids
Okorocha’s son-in-law, Uche
Nwosu’s gov’ship candidature
remove the name of Uche Nwosu as a
governorship candidate in the last election held in
Imo State.
Justice Inyang Ekwo voided Nwosu’s candidacy
on the grounds of double nomination by two
political parties, the All Progressives Congress
(APC) and the Action Alliance (AA), in violation of
section 37 of the Electoral Act.
Justice Ekwo in his judgment, upheld the case of
the plaintiffs, the Action Peoples Party and its
Deputy National Chairman, Mr. Uche Nnadi, to the
effect that Nwosu’s governorship candidature was
null and void on the grounds of multiplicity of
nominations as the governorship candidate of
both the APC and AA.
Justice Ekwo declared that the nomination of
Nwosu by AA as a governorship candidate, “is
invalid, null and void, having been made at the
pendency of similar nomination of the 2nd
defendant (Nwosu) by the APC for the same
position”.
The judge noted that Nwosu affirmed to be the
APC’s governorship candidate in his statement on
oath sworn before the High Court of the Federal
Capital Territory.
The judge similarly declared that Nwosu, “has not
been validly nominated by the 3rd defendant (AA)
as its governorship candidate for the Imo State
governorship election having been made at the
pendency of the order of Justice Valentine Ashi of
the Abuja High Court recognising the 2nd
defendant as the candidate of the APC for the Imo
State 2019 governorship election.”
He noted that Nwosu participated in the APC’s
primary held on October 6, 2018 and was
subsequently nominated as the party’s
governorship candidate.
While laying claim to the APC’s governorship
ticket, amidst stiff opposition from members of
the party, he was said to have on October 9,
2018, obtained an order of Justice Valentine Ashi
(now deceased) of the High Court of the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja, recognising him as the
valid candidate of the party.
In the midst of this, it was learnt, Nwosu was
also offered the ticket of the AA.
Delivering judgment on the plaintiffs’ case, Justice
Ekwo said, “There is no controversy that, on
October 6, 2018, the 2nd defendant (Nwosu) had
himself nominated as the governorship candidate
of the APC.
“Furthermore, there is no controversy that, to
secure his nomination by the APC, the 2nd
defendant on October 9, 2019, obtained an order
of the High Court of the Federal High Court which
subsists having not been set aside.”
Justice Ekwo held that Nwosu, through his
lawyers, failed to offer any valid rebuttal to the
plaintiffs’ evidence that he was nominated by both
the APC and the AA, while INEC filed no papers in
the case.
“It is illegal in the eyes of the law. No one is
allowed to benefit from an illegal act. The 2nd
defendant allowed himself to be nominated by the
APC and the 3rd defendant (AA).
“It is hereby declared that the nomination of the
2nd defendant by the All Progressives Congress
and Action Alliance, the 3rd defendant, is invalid,
null and void and constitute violation of section
37 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
“An order of this honourable court is hereby made
directing the 1st defendant (INEC) to remove the
name of the 2nd defendant (Nwosu) as the
governorship of the 3rd defendant (AA) in the
2019 Imo State governorship election for multiple
nomination in violation of the provision of section
37 of the Electoral Act 2018 (as amended).
“An order of this honourable court is hereby made
restraining the 1st defendant (INEC) from
recognising the 2nd defendant (Nwosu) as the
governorship of the 3rd defendant (AA) and/or
any other political party for the 2019 Imo State
governorship election.
“An order of this honourable court is hereby made
restraining the 1st defendant (INEC) from giving
value to any act done in pursuance of the 2nd
defendant purported candidature of the 3rd
defendant (AA) and/or any other political party in
the 2019 Imo State governorship election”, the
judge held.
The judge earlier dismissed Nwosu’s preliminary
objection and picked holes in the defence he and
the AA separately filed against the substantive
suit.
Dismissing the preliminary objection, Justice
Ekwo ruled that the provision section 285(9) of
the Constitution which stipulates that a pre-
election case must be filed within 14 days of the
occurrence of the event being complained of, was
not applicable to the case.
The plaintiffs, APP and Nnadi, filed their suit
marked FHC/ABJ/CS/235/2019 on February 27,
2019.
Click here for more detail https://digitalmarketingskill.com
Justice Ekwoe held that the intention of section
285(9) of the Constitution cited by Nwosu’s legal
team was not to make the court “to gloss over all
acts prohibited by the Electoral Act” and added
that, “It will mean that section 285(9) of the
Constitution is capable, by effect, of allowing a
void, illegal or prohibited act to stand and the
person behind the act to benefit from the act that
is void ab initio.
“It must be said that an illegal or prohibited act
does not become legal by virtue of being time-
barred,” the judge added.
He also ruled that the suit was not an abuse of
court processes since it was filed to seek an
interpretation of the provision of the Electoral Act
and also held that by virtue of the provision of
section 37 of the Electoral Act, the plaintiffs,
despite that they did not participate in the
election, possessed the locus standi (legal right)
to file their suit.
wins in court
The Presidential Election on Thursday dismissed
the petition filed by the Hope Democratic Party
(HDP) challenging the victory of President
Muhammadu Buhari in the February 23 election.
NAN reports that the HDP prayed the tribunal to
set aside the presidential election of Feb. 23 on
the grounds that INEC did not follow conditions in
the Electoral Act before postponing the poll earlier
scheduled for February 16.
Adopting the HDP’s final address, its lead
counsel Mr Chukwunoyerem Njoku, informed the
Tribunal that because INEC did not follow the
conditions before postponing the election
unconstitutionally, a referendum was conducted in
line with the law and the presidential candidate of
the HDP, Mr. Ambrose Oworu, emerged winner of
the referendum with over 50 million votes.
He submitted that Nigerian citizens participated in
Feb. 16 referendum as required by law and urged
the tribunal to nullify the declaration of President
Muhammadu Buhari by INEC as president and in
his place, restore Owuru as the authentic winner.
However, Buhari, represented by Mr. Wole
Olanipekun SAN, urged the Tribunal to dismiss the
petition on the grounds that it is frivolous,
baseless and lacking in merit.
Olanipekun told the Tribunal that the petitioners
did not in any way adduce evidence on how the
referendum was conducted and who conducted it
in line with the provisions of the law.
He also said he had studied carefully the final
address of the HDP and its presidential candidate
and there was nowhere they made any case
against President Buhari.
Also adopting its final address, INEC through its
lead counsel, Mr. Yinus Usman, urged the Tribunal
to dismiss the petition with substantial cost to
serve as a deterrent to those who may wish to file
frivolous and baseless petitions in the 2023
elections.
Usman argued that the petition lacked merit
because the electoral body conducted an election
and not a referendum and that the claims of the
two petitioners were strange to the electoral
umpire.
The All Progressive Congress (APC) represented
by Mr. Akin Olujimi, in its final address,
demanded the dismissal of the petition for
lacking in merit.
2019 Imo guber: Court voids
Okorocha’s son-in-law, Uche
Nwosu’s gov’ship candidature
https://romebusinessschool.ng.
The federal High court in Abuja, Monday, ordered
the Independent National Electoral Commission toremove the name of Uche Nwosu as a
governorship candidate in the last election held in
Imo State.
Justice Inyang Ekwo voided Nwosu’s candidacy
on the grounds of double nomination by two
political parties, the All Progressives Congress
(APC) and the Action Alliance (AA), in violation of
section 37 of the Electoral Act.
Justice Ekwo in his judgment, upheld the case of
the plaintiffs, the Action Peoples Party and its
Deputy National Chairman, Mr. Uche Nnadi, to the
effect that Nwosu’s governorship candidature was
null and void on the grounds of multiplicity of
nominations as the governorship candidate of
both the APC and AA.
Justice Ekwo declared that the nomination of
Nwosu by AA as a governorship candidate, “is
invalid, null and void, having been made at the
pendency of similar nomination of the 2nd
defendant (Nwosu) by the APC for the same
position”.
The judge noted that Nwosu affirmed to be the
APC’s governorship candidate in his statement on
oath sworn before the High Court of the Federal
Capital Territory.
The judge similarly declared that Nwosu, “has not
been validly nominated by the 3rd defendant (AA)
as its governorship candidate for the Imo State
governorship election having been made at the
pendency of the order of Justice Valentine Ashi of
the Abuja High Court recognising the 2nd
defendant as the candidate of the APC for the Imo
State 2019 governorship election.”
He noted that Nwosu participated in the APC’s
primary held on October 6, 2018 and was
subsequently nominated as the party’s
governorship candidate.
While laying claim to the APC’s governorship
ticket, amidst stiff opposition from members of
the party, he was said to have on October 9,
2018, obtained an order of Justice Valentine Ashi
(now deceased) of the High Court of the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja, recognising him as the
valid candidate of the party.
In the midst of this, it was learnt, Nwosu was
also offered the ticket of the AA.
Delivering judgment on the plaintiffs’ case, Justice
Ekwo said, “There is no controversy that, on
October 6, 2018, the 2nd defendant (Nwosu) had
himself nominated as the governorship candidate
of the APC.
“Furthermore, there is no controversy that, to
secure his nomination by the APC, the 2nd
defendant on October 9, 2019, obtained an order
of the High Court of the Federal High Court which
subsists having not been set aside.”
Justice Ekwo held that Nwosu, through his
lawyers, failed to offer any valid rebuttal to the
plaintiffs’ evidence that he was nominated by both
the APC and the AA, while INEC filed no papers in
the case.
“It is illegal in the eyes of the law. No one is
allowed to benefit from an illegal act. The 2nd
defendant allowed himself to be nominated by the
APC and the 3rd defendant (AA).
“It is hereby declared that the nomination of the
2nd defendant by the All Progressives Congress
and Action Alliance, the 3rd defendant, is invalid,
null and void and constitute violation of section
37 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
“An order of this honourable court is hereby made
directing the 1st defendant (INEC) to remove the
name of the 2nd defendant (Nwosu) as the
governorship of the 3rd defendant (AA) in the
2019 Imo State governorship election for multiple
nomination in violation of the provision of section
37 of the Electoral Act 2018 (as amended).
“An order of this honourable court is hereby made
restraining the 1st defendant (INEC) from
recognising the 2nd defendant (Nwosu) as the
governorship of the 3rd defendant (AA) and/or
any other political party for the 2019 Imo State
governorship election.
“An order of this honourable court is hereby made
restraining the 1st defendant (INEC) from giving
value to any act done in pursuance of the 2nd
defendant purported candidature of the 3rd
defendant (AA) and/or any other political party in
the 2019 Imo State governorship election”, the
judge held.
The judge earlier dismissed Nwosu’s preliminary
objection and picked holes in the defence he and
the AA separately filed against the substantive
suit.
Dismissing the preliminary objection, Justice
Ekwo ruled that the provision section 285(9) of
the Constitution which stipulates that a pre-
election case must be filed within 14 days of the
occurrence of the event being complained of, was
not applicable to the case.
The plaintiffs, APP and Nnadi, filed their suit
marked FHC/ABJ/CS/235/2019 on February 27,
2019.
Justice Ekwoe held that the intention of section
285(9) of the Constitution cited by Nwosu’s legal
team was not to make the court “to gloss over all
acts prohibited by the Electoral Act” and added
that, “It will mean that section 285(9) of the
Constitution is capable, by effect, of allowing a
void, illegal or prohibited act to stand and the
person behind the act to benefit from the act that
is void ab initio.
“It must be said that an illegal or prohibited act
does not become legal by virtue of being time-
barred,” the judge added.
He also ruled that the suit was not an abuse of
court processes since it was filed to seek an
interpretation of the provision of the Electoral Act
and also held that by virtue of the provision of
section 37 of the Electoral Act, the plaintiffs,
despite that they did not participate in the
election, possessed the locus standi (legal right)
to file their suit.
Comments