A governorship aspirant in Ogun State, Jimi Lawal, has appealed the Federal High Court judgment which dismissed his suit against the emergence of Dr Oladipupo Adebutu as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate.
Justice Taiwo Taiwo on July 29 held that the choice of delegates to vote at the governorship primary was exclusively within the domain of a political party and therefore the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Lawal had sued the PDP, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Dr Oladipupo Adebutu.
The appellant had contended that the list used was at variance with what INEC certified and gave to him as the list of delegates that emerged from the ward congress held on April 30.
Lawal had challenged the conduct of the governorship primary on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and PDP constitution and guidelines.
In the notice of appeal filed through his counsel Ola Olanipekun (SAN), Lawal disagreed with Justice Taiwo’s decision to the effect that the issues in contention relate to the domestic affairs of a political party over which the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on.
He said the trial judge failed to consider the merits of the case.
The appellant argued that the judge erred in law when he upheld the respondent’s notice of preliminary objection in part and declined jurisdiction to entertain his case.
According to Lawal, his suit as formulated in his Originating Summons was directed at the first respondent’s (PDP’s) violation of the provisions of Section 84 (1), (2), (5)(b) and (8) of the Electoral Act and Article 25(1)(L) & (2)(C) of the party’s constitution and guidelines in the manner the primary was conducted on May 25.
He argued that the judge was wrong to hold that the suit bordered on the domestic/internal affairs of the party and does not qualify as a pre-election matter under the 1999 Constitution.
The appellant said the issues submitted for determination raised issues as to whether PDP’s primary, which resulted in the emergence of the third respondent, was conducted following the Electoral Act and PDP’s constitution.
He contended that in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Ufomba vs INEC (2017) and others, the courts have jurisdiction to examine whether the conduct of a party’s primary election accorded with the law.
Lawal said the failure to use the candidates who emerged from the ward congresses for the governorship primaries constituted a gross violation of the Electoral Act and the Constitution and Guidelines of the party.
“The trial court, in taking a ‘narrow construction’ of the appellant’s suit, missed the substance of the appellant’s complaint which challenged the first respondent’s violation of the Electoral Act and its constitution and guidelines.
“It was inconsistent of the learned trial judge to hold that while the appellant had locus standi to institute the action, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.
“By the doctrine of judicial precedent, the trial court ought to have followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ufomba vs INEC to the effect that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s suit questioning whether the primary election complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the first respondent’s constitution and guidelines.”
The appellant raised six grounds of appeal and urged the Court of Appeal to hold that the final judgment of the trial judge contravened the electoral laws and binding decisions of the appellate courts.
He added that the dismissal of his case was “perverse”.
Lawal urged the Court of Appeal to set aside part of Justice Taiwo’s decision to the effect that the issues related to the party’s internal affairs, and to determine the substantive suit numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/773/2022 on merit.
He also sought an order granting the reliefs sought.