On Tuesday, a Federal High Court in Abuja declined to grant a motion that sought an order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to reject Bola Tinubu as the All Progressives Congress, APC’s candidate for the 2023 presidential election.
The court additionally refused to grant the request, requesting that INEC refrain from designating Atiku Abubakar as the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) presidential candidate for the election scheduled for the following year.
Instead of convicting the defendants, Justice Inyang Ekwo ordered the plaintiffs, Northern Nigerian Youth Democrats (NNYD) and Incorporated Trustees of Rights for All International (RAI), to notify each one of them.
When Kingdom Okere, the plaintiffs’ attorney, filed an ex-parte motion with the reference number FHC/ABJ/CS/942/2022 on June 22, Justice Ekwo rejected the first, second, and third prayers in the motion but granted the fourth, fifth, and sixth.
In addition, the judge instructed the attorney to serve the defendants with court documents within seven days of the order. The judge then postponed the case until July 14 for further discussion.
RAI and NNYD reportedly requested six orders in a motion that was filed by their attorney, according to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).
The defendants listed in the application are the APC, PDP, Tinubu, Atiku, Nyesom Wike, Bukola Saraki, Anyim Pius Anyim, Bala Mohammed, Udom Emmanuel, Terella Diana, Dele Momodu, Ayo Fayose, Charles Ugwu, and Chikwendu Kalu, listed as the first through the fourteenth defendants, respectively.
Additionally, Yemi Osinbajo, Rotimi Amaechi, Yahaya Bello, Ogbonnaya Onu, Chief Ikeobasi Mokelu, Pastor Tunde Bakare, Sam Ohuabunwa, Chukwuemeka Nwajuba, Chief Ikeobasi Mokelu, Ahmad Yerima, Rochas Okorocha, Tein Jack-Rich, David Umahi, Dr. Ahmad Lawal,
“An order restraining, prohibiting and barring the 29th defendant (INEC) from accepting the nomination of the third and fourth defendants (Tinubu and Atiku) as the presidential candidates of the first and second defendants (APC and PDP) for the 2023 presidential election pending the hearing of the motion on notice or as may otherwise be directed by the Hon. Court” was one of the orders the court declined to issue.
“An order directing all parties to this lawsuit to maintain the status quo that existed prior to the suit pending as may otherwise be directed by this Hon. Court.”
“An directing expeditious hearing/fast-tracking of this lawsuit and reducing the amount of time the plaintiffs and defendants have to file their respective defences and responses in this lawsuit to five days from the date this application is granted.”
In contrast, the court authorised substituted service for a number of individuals, including Tinubu, Atiku, Wike, Saraki, Nwajuba, Bakare, Yarima, Okorocha, and Jack-Rich.
The publication of just the original summons in a national daily also allowed for an order of substituted service to be made against all defendants.
Okere stated that the lawsuit is a public interest suit that seeks to promote constitutional democracy, the rule of law, the federal character principle, and principles of equity, justice, and fairness in holding the office of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s President, among other things. Okere provided seven reasons why the orders should be granted.
In the originating summons, the attorney requests that the court decide “whether having regard to the clear, unambiguous and express provisions, sprit and tenor of ARTICLES 11 (A) (I), 12 (1) AND 13 (1) of the Constitution of the APC, 2014 (as amended), the special national convention of the 1st defendant held on the June 6 and June 7 was properly constituted as regards the composition of delegates who should attend and vote at the said convention.
Among other things, the court will decide “whether having regard to the clear, unambiguous and express provisions, sprit, and tenor of Section 33 (1) AND (5) (C) of the Constitution of the PDP, 2017, (as amended), the special national convention of the 2nd defendant held on May 28 and May 29 was properly constituted as regards the composition of delegates who should attend and vote at the said convention.”
