The Federal
High Court, Abuja, has fixed September 11, for judgment in a suit filed by Senator
Dino Melaye, represents Kogi West, seeking an order of court to stop his recall
from the Senate.
Also, the
vacation judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba has slated September 11, for judgment in
a sister suit filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and 12 others from
Kogi State chapter of the Party, against the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC), challenging the planned recall of Melaye.
Arguing the
substantive suit, Melaye’s counsel, Nkem Okoro, urged the court to grant the
plaintiff’s reliefs seeking to stop the recall process.
Melaye’s
amended originating summon dated August 7, and filed same day, was brought
pursuant to Sections 1(1)(3), 36, 68 and 69 of the 1999 Constitution and Order
3, Rule 6 of the Federal High Court Rules.
Standing on
his processes, Okoro stated that Melaye was challenging the purported petition
for his recall on five grounds. He averred that “the petitioners ought to have
availed him with facts and circumstances upon which the alleged lost of
confidence was based, prior to submission of the petition to INEC; “That by not
giving him copies of the petitions, INEC has violated the rule of natural
justice and fair hearing.”
Melaye also
posited that even when the petition was submitted, the electoral body failed to
give him a copy.
He equally
challenged the constitutionality of required numbers of signatories to the
petition in line with Section 69 of the Constitution, which requires more than
half of registered voters in the constituency.
His lawyer
in urging the court to uphold his prayers in the originating summon, submitted
that, “majority of the signatures/signatories to the petition are non-existent,
dead and forged.
He insisted
that the petition was “initiated as a result of political malice, bad fate and
animosity. Counsel to the second to fifth plaintiffs, Ponsak Bigun, aligned
himself with submission of Okoro, and urged court to grant Melaye’s prayers.
However,
counsel to INEC, Sulayiman Ibrahim, in a counter affidavit he filed on July 14,
urged the court to dismiss Melaye’s suit for lacking in merit.
Also, the
second to fourth defendants represented by Anthony Adeniyi prayed the court to
discountenance the submissions of Melaye’s lawyer. Earlier, Ibrahim had argued
INEC’s preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear
Melaye’s suit as presently constituted.
INEC noted
that the amended originating summon dated August 7 and filed on August 8, was
incongruous and grossly incompetent, having been filed contrary to Order 3 Rule
9 and Order 17 Rules 4, 5 of the Federal High Court Procedure Rules.
Counsel to
INEC told Justice Dimgba that after leave was granted for amendment of the
originating summon, Melaye filed an affidavit that was completely at variance
with order of court without obtaining leave.
Replying on
points of law, Melaye’s lawyer urged court to dismiss the preliminary
objection, insisting that “the amended originating summon is in compliance with
Order 3 Rule 9.”
Okoro
informed the court that INEC had even responded to the summon, “and had waived
his right by already joining issues.
“My Lord,
his complainant about variance assuming without conceding that it is an
irregularity, cannot nullify the originating summon based on the provisions of
Order 51 of FHC rules. “Supreme Court has said that technicality cannot stand
on the way of substantial justice” Okoro argued.
Meanwhile,
in the suit filed by APC against INEC, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/601/2017, the court
took arguments from the plaintiff and defence counsel, and fixed September 11,
for judgment.
Adopting his
originating processes, counsel to APC, Samuel Ologunorisa, urged the court to
grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
Ologunorisa
argued that there was no counter affidavit from the defendant, insisting that
one Alhaji Addy Ametuo, a litigation clerk, who failed to disclose his source
of information, deposed to the affidavit.
“My Lord,
this is fundamentally defective. All that was stated in the counter-affidavit
was that the deponent works in the chamber of Yusuf Ustaz Usman.
However,
INEC’s lawyer, Yunus Usman urged court to dismiss the suit.
0 Comments