.jpeg)
The Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, and President-Elect, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has defeated a former Minister of State for Education, Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba, who had sought to disqualify the National Leader of the party.
This is because the Supreme Court of Nigeria dismantled the Appeal instituted by the former Minister, seeking to disqualify Tinubu of the APC.
The Supreme Court threw out the Appeal on the ground that it was statute-barred, having no life supporting it and legs to stand upon.
The Apex Court, presided over by Justice John Inyang Okoro, while dismissing the Appeal, however, did not award cost against the former Minister for withdrawing his case when informed that the case was filed outside the time prescribed by law.
It would be recalled that a Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Justice Z. B Abubakar had sometime in December 2022 dismissed Nwajiuba's suit, designated FHC/ABJ/CS/1114/2022 on the ground that the same was lacking in merit.
Apart from Tinubu, another party sued is the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
Nwajiuba had asked the Federal High Court to issue “A declaration that the mandatory provisions of Section 90(3) of the 2022 Electoral Act, 2022 were not complied with by the 2nd Defendant in nominating and submitting the 1st Defendant as its presidential candidate to the 3rd Defendant for the 2023 presidential election.
“A declaration that the combined reading of Section 90(3} of the 2022 Electoral Act and Article 22(1) of the 2nd Defendant's Constitution, the expression of interest and nomination fees of N100 million each paid to the 2nd Defendant by both the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant and other presidential aspirants is money and monetary contribution as envisaged in the Act.
“A declaration that the N100 million fees paid by the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant and other Presidential aspirants to the 2nd Defendant as an expression of interest and nomination forms is the first compulsory step and first qualification to participate in the 2nd Defendant's primary election and is part of the process to conduct a presidential primary election by the 2nd Defendant.
“A declaration that by virtue of Section 84(13) of the Electoral Act 2022, the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ failure to identify the source of the N100 million fees (monetary contributions) to the conduct of the 2nd Defendant's primary election empowers the 3rd Defendant to exclude the 1st Defendant in the 2023 presidential election.
“A declaration that the plaintiff who contested the All Progressives Congress presidential primary election and whose nomination and expression of interest form fees (monetary contribution) is verified, by producing the list of donors who donated between N500 to N500,000 conforms with the provisions of Section 90(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“A declaration that the Plaintiff being the only candidate who scored vote at the 2nd Defendant's primary election and who provided source of identification of his monetary contribution in compliance with Section 90(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 where others did not, is the only qualified contestant and his vote at the primary election is the only lawful and valid vote scored at the convention and hereby declared the candidate of the APC for the 2023 presidential election.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining, baring and prohibiting the 3rd Defendant from accepting the candidacy of the 1st Defendant nominated in breach of the law.
“An order mandating and compelling the 3rd Defendant to perform its statutory duty imposed on it in section 84(13) of the Electoral Act, 2022 to immediately expunge the name of the 1st Defendant from the list of candidates for the 2023 presidential election and to exclude the 1st Defendant in the 2023 presidential election.
“An order returning the plaintiff to the 3rd Defendant as the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress on the grounds that the Plaintiff's nomination met the requirements of the Provisions of Section 90(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022.”
In defending the suit on behalf of the APC, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Babatunde Ogala, initiated a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance, a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Counter-Alfidavit with Written Addresses.
The Preliminary objection was premised on the following grounds: (a) That the suit is statute-barred, (b) That proper parties, i.e. presidential aspirants of the 2nd Defendant were not joined, (c) That the suit was premature by virtue of the provisions of Section 90(4) of the Electoral Act, (d) And the suit constituted an abuse of court process.
On December 19, 2022, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr Gbenga Benson, counsel in the law office of Babatunde Ogala, SAN, appeared for the APC and adopted the processes, just as he urged the court to dismiss or strike out the suit.
Delivering judgement on the preliminary objection filed on behalf of the 2nd Defendant, the trial judge agreed with counsel for the 2nd Defendant (APC) that the Plaintiff's action was statute barred by the provisions of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution.
But not satisfied, Nwajiuba (now Appellant) challenged the decision of the trial court by a Notice of Appeal dated January 4, 2023.
The reliefs sought by Nwajiuba are as follows:
"An order allowing the Appeal
“An order invoking Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2021 to hear and determine the substance of the suit.”
The appeal was heard by a 3-man panel of the appellate court on February 15, 2023, and judgement was reserved.
Ogala, SAN, prayed the court to dismiss the appeal and award punitive costs against the Appellant as the Appeal constituted a waste of judicial time and resources.
In its judgement delivered on February 24, 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court as follows:
A. The lower court rightly held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the suit was filed outside the statutorily mandated and allowed period of 14 days.
B. Appeals are by way of rehearing and the lower court having been robbed of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate.
C. The Appeal is dismissed as the Court of Appeal tacks the jurisdiction to entertain same, the suit at the lower court having been filed outside the 14 days of the occurrence of the event, action, or decision complained of.
D. The persuasion that this court should overturn the Supreme Court as stated in Okechuckwu v INEC will not succeed this court being an intermediary court. That decision is binding on even the Supreme Court until set aside, more so when the same was delivered by the current CJN.
E. Cost of One million Naira is awarded against the Appellant in favour of the Respondents each.
F. The Appeal is lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed.
Still not satisfied by the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Nwajiuba through his counsel, Awa Kalu, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on March 8, 2023, with a Brief of Argument filed on March 16, 2023.
However, upon withdrawal of the case, the apex court dismissed the suit. Before the withdrawal of the case, the Supreme Court upon evaluation of the Appellant's processes found the same to be a waste of judicial time and resources and statute bared.
All rights reserved. This material and other digital volumes on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
For advert placement, please contact thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08033599492.
إرسال تعليق