By Jonathan Ugbal
Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Calabar division of the Federal High Court has fixed October 28, 2022, for her judgment on a suit seeking, among other reliefs, the nullification of the candidacy of Honorable Regina Anyogo as the flag bearer of the All Progressives Congress, APC in the 2023 general elections for the Yala one State Constituency.
The suit was brought via an originating summons by the plaintiff, Victoria Otanya Odey who asked, in the alternative, to be declared as the candidate of the APC.
The APC, Mrs. Anyogo, and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC were listed as first to third defendants respectively in the suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/852/2022.
The matter was initially billed for hearing on Wednesday but stalled over controversy as to who will represent the first defendant after Leo Anyogo Esq, and Hussaini Hussaini Esq both filed processes on behalf of the first defendant.
However, the issue was resolved on Thursday with Anyogo Esq proceeding to hold briefs for the first and second defendants while the third defendant was not represented and did not join issues with other parties.
The parties in Court moved motions to regularize their processes filed out of time without objections which the Court granted.
The Issues And Arguments…
The case, which seemed straightforward, turned dramatic as the plaintiff applied for the Court to sever the first three out of five questions raised for determinations and reliefs six, seven, and eight sought. Counsel to the plaintiff, F. Baba Isa Esq, prayed the Court to rely on Paragraphs 11 through 20 of their written address to determine the remaining reliefs sought. Isa Esq argued that the issues were distinct and will not constitute a problem when the Court is sieving through them. Furthermore, he submitted that their depositions in their affidavits were in tandem with the remaining reliefs sought.
Counsel for the first and second defendant, Leonard Anyogo Esq, opposed the application and submitted that the plaintiff was changing the goal post which was akin to amending his process as stated in Order 17 Rule 5 of the Court rules. He said the plaintiff was trying to dodge the issue of exclusion raised in their written address which relates to locus and asked the Court not to grant the application.
Justice Ojukwu did not grant the plaintiffs’ application and held that the Court cannot sieve through the issues left as they were interwoven.
The Counsel to the plaintiff then adopted his processes and submitted that the first and second defendants engaged in shenanigans to cheat the plaintiff, which included keeping her away from the primaries. Citing the guidelines issued for the conduct of primaries as well as the report of the primaries by the third defendant, he argued that the primaries did not hold in the Yala 1 State constituency, but in Ogoja, thereby rendering them invalid having run afoul of the Electoral Act 2022 as amended.
Also, he submitted that the second defendant was not a member of the first defendant. He drew the Court’s attention to another case, now pending at the Appeal Court, where the first defendant deposed to affidavits that the second defendant was not a member of the APC. He urged the Court to discountenance the preliminary objection of the first and second defendants and grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
While adopting their processes, the Counsel to the first and second defendant urged the Court to discountenance the plaintiffs’ rejoinder on points of law to their better and further counter affidavit and submitted that the plaintiffs’ averments, exhibits, and prayers, agreed with the defendants in totality that the plaintiff did not participate in the primaries of the first defendant.
He submitted that the issues of nomination and membership are non-justiciable and referred to such, as pre-primary election issues, not contemplated in the Electoral Act 2022 as amended. On the live appeal matter, he submitted that the trial Court had held that the second defendant is a member of the first defendant and posited that the INEC report was not foolproof. Furthermore, he said the plaintiffs’ avowments were contradictory and sought a cost of NGN5 million.
Leave feedback about this