The Democratic People’s Party(DPP) has approached the Federal High Court, Abuja, to challenge the legitimacy of the constitutional provision, limiting the period a court or tribunal must decide electoral disputes.
The party and six of its members in Delta State argued in a suit before the court that the National Assembly was in error in inserting sub-sections 6 and 7 to Section 285 of the Constitution, without complying with Section 9(3) and first amending Section 36 (1).
They argued that the insertion of both sub-sections in Section 285 violated the provisions and intentions of Sections 4(8), 6(6), 9(3), 36(1) and 294(1) of the Constitution.
The plaintiffs stated that they contested election into various offices under the party in the last general election, challenged the outcome at the tribunal, but that the provisions formed the basis on which the court denied them the right to fair hearing by dismissing their cases without determining them on merit.
Other plaintiffs in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/448/2012, filed by their lawyer, Nelson Imoh include Kingsley-Noye Philips, Cyril Abeye Ogodo, Lovethe Edirin Idisi, Odjuwu Okumagba, Napoleon Gbinije and Denbo-Denbofa Oweikpodo.
Named as defendants are the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Attorney General of the Federation.
The plaintiffs raised seven questions for the court’s determination, to include whether Section 285 of the Constitution as altered by the insertion of sub-sections 6 and 7 to the section is not void, having been done in fragrant disregard of section 9(3) of the Constitution.
They also asked the court to determine whether by the combined effects of Sections 4(8), 36(1) and 294(1) the National Assembly has the constitutional powers to delimit the time for the determination of the civil rights and obligations of the plaintiffs by the court or tribunals established under the constitution.
The plaintiffs want the court to among others, declare that the National Assembly lacked the powers under the Constitution, to alter Section 285 by inserting sub-sections 6 and 7 in so far as the alteration breaches the determination of the plaintiffs’ civil rights to have their rights and obligations determined within reasonable time as required by the Constitution.
They also want the court to declare that Sections 36(1) and 294(1) are the only parts of the 1999 Constitution dealing with the time for the determination of the civil rights of the plaintiffs. They are seeking an order declaring as void and unconstitutional all decisions taken on the basis of the said alteration.
The plaintiffs also praying the court for an “order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, all authorities in Nigeria, courts, tribunals, agencies” in the country from enforcing or giving effect to the said Section 285 “in the manner as unlawfully and unconstitutionally alerted by the National Assembly.”
The plaintiffs, in a supporting affidavit, contended that 18 appeals filed by DPP and its candidates at the Court of Appeal, Benin for both the National and State Assembly were not heard because of lapse of 60 days provided for in Section 285 (7) of the Constitution.
They averred that their governorship appeal in the 2011 elections in Delta State allowed on the issue of competence by the Supreme Court was struck out for lapse of 60 days by the court which declared an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal null and void on the ground that it was delivered out of the 60 days time line provided in Section 285(7).
The plaintiffs argued that the alteration to Section 285 prevented the tribunals and Court of Appeal from determining their election appeals on merit. Hearing will open in the case shortly after the court’s annual vacation later this month
