Tag: pre-election

  • 396 pre-election cases may stymie Vote 2019

    ABOUT 42 days to the general election, there are still a lot of pre-election matters before the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court with glaring implications for  the umpire (INEC), the parties and candidates. Many candidates in  Adamawa,  Zamfara, Rivers, Ogun,  Kwara, Imo and others do not know their fate. According to records obtained from INEC, there are 396 court actions arising from the primaries conducted by political parties. The figure is higher than 200 matters in court before the 2015 poll. A source in INEC said: “All the things we have criticized about general elections manifested during the primaries.”

    The big question is: Will the court be able to resolve all pre-election matters on or before February 16? Will candidates still win elective offices through the backdoor this time around?  Nigerians look forward to the Judiciary to save the electoral process and restore sanity.

  • Judge withholds judgment in Osun  pre-election dispute

    Judge withholds judgment in Osun pre-election dispute

    Justice Steven Evoh Chukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja has withheld judgment in a 2015 pre-election dispute involving members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Osun State.

    The case has been adjourned for judgment for about eight times since parties concluded their arguments and adopted final addresses on January 11.

    Justice Chukwu had, on January 11, adjourned till February 25 for judgment.

    It had also been variously adjourned till February 29, March 9, April 27, May 3, May 6 and May 18.

    When parties got to court on May 18, they were told by court officials that the judge was not available, following which the judgment was further shifted to May 31.

    The plaintiff, Ayodele Kusamotu, is challenging the failure of the APC to give him a nomination form to contest its primary for the 2015 National Assembly election in Osun State.

  • CJN queries judge over 2011 pre-election case

    CJN queries judge over 2011 pre-election case

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, has asked a judge of the Federal High Court in Lagos, Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, to explain why judgment was not delievered in a 2011 pre-election suit  after judgment was fixed twice within the last three years.

    It was learnt that the CJN’s correspondence to the judge, with Reference number NJC/F.3/FHC.26/1/232  dated February 17, was sequel to a petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC) by Mrs. Victoria Ayeni, the plaintiff in the 2011 pre-election suit brought against Olusola Sonuga and two others.

    The CJN’s missive, which served as a reminder, was titled: “Re: Petition against Honourable Justice R.N. Ofili-Ajumogobia, sitting at the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court of Nigeria”. It was copied to the court’s Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta.

    It reads: “I refer to my predecessor’s letter No. NJC/F.3/FHC.26/1/212 dated 14th August, 2014 on the above subject matter, which you are yet to forward your response.

    “I forward herewith a reminder petition dated 31st January, 2014 (sic) by the petitioner, Mrs. Victoria A.A. Ayeni.

    “You are, therefore, requested to explain why judgment cannot be delievered in the matter. Your response should be forwarded to my Chambers through your Chief Judge within two weeks from the date of your receipt of this letter, please.” It was signed by the CJN and in his capacity as the Chairman of the NJC.

    Judgment in the suit  No.  FHC/AB/CS/31/2011, which was reportedly argued by parties on May 22, 2012 in Abeokuta, was first fixed for judgment on July 10, 2012.

    It was argued de-novo (afresh) in Lagos following a directive by the Chief Judge that the matter be concluded by the trial judge, who had then been transferred to Lagos. Judgment was fixed for June 14, 2014. But judgment is yet to be delivered in the matter till date.

    In her petition, Ayeni, an aspirant for the Ogun State House of Assembly on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had accused the judge of having a “compromising posture” in the suit numbered  FHC/AB/CS/31/2011. The PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are the other defendants.

    The petitioner, who alleged that the trial judge was using judicial powers against her since 2011, is asking for a panel of investigation to be set up to determine whether or not the trial judge “has not compromised her position” as a judge in the suit.

    Ayeni alleged that  hearing in the suit, which was filed on June 2, 2011 through an Originating Summons, did not commence until May 22, 2013, after seven adjournments.

    The petitioner said it was in the course of waiting for the judgment that the judge was transferred to the Lagos Judicial Division, adding that it took several months before the Chief Judge  directed that the matter be concluded.

    She claimed she paid several visits to the court in Lagos without getting a hearing date.

    Consequent, her lawyer, Dele Ajasa, wrote a letter dated May 30, 2013, requesting for a date for hearing which was later fixed for November 25, 2013.

    Though her counsel and that of the first defendant argued their case on the resumption date, she claimed that the trial judge ordered that a fresh hearing date be served on the second and third defendants and adjourned the matter till December 3, 2013.

    The matter, she claimed, went through six adjournments before a fresh hearing was finally held on April 3, 2014 and judgment fixed for June 16, 2014.

    The petitioner added that case suffered several adjournments  between June 16 and July 16, 2014.

    According to Ayeni, she lost her patience when it became obvious that the judgment may never be delivered.

    Although fixed for July 16, 2014, the judgment was again not delivered that day despite the fact that her counsel and that of the second defendant were in court.

    Spokesperson of the NJC, Mr. Soji Oye, said given the date of the CJN’s correspondence, the judge would have replied the CJN.

    Oye said if she can defend her action and her reply appears satisfactory,  there would be no problem and they would write the petitioner appropriately.

    “But if he is not, he can then set up a committee to investigate the allegation of the petitioner and the committee would recommend to the NJC. I believe that committee would have sat by now and taken its decision and made a recommendation to the CJN,” he said.

    Asked if that could be the reason why the judge has not given a date for judgment in the matter, he said it all depended on what the committee recommended to the CJN.

    In the originating summons, Ayeni, aside from listing four issues for determination, had prayed the court for an injunction restraining the third defendant from recognising and, or accepting the first defendant as the candidate of the PDP for Ikenne constituency in the April 26, 2011 election into Ogun State House of Assembly.

    She sought an order nullifying the certificate of return issued by the third defendant to the first defendant; an order deeming the plaintiff as the candidate of the PDP for Ikenne constituency that won the April 26, 2011 elections into the Ogun State House of Assembly, among  the nine reliefs sought from the court.

    But the first defendant, in his 24-point counter affidavit, contended that he won the primary election of the party and was duly announced as winner.

    He averred that the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew her candidacy for the April 2011 general election and that it was on that strength, which was also communicated to the second and third defendants, that the final list was released by the party, showing candidates for the election.

    He contended that the plaintiff having validly withdrawn her candidacy two months before the election could not turn around to challenge her substitution with himself.

    The second defendant, who was the secretary of the party and had good knowledge of the event, averred that it was the party that persuaded the plaintiff to withdraw her candidacy in order to increase the party’s chances of winning the election.

    He contended that the plaintiff willingly withdrew her candidature to enable the first defendant fly the party’s flag at the election since the first defendant is from Ikenne, adding, “the state chairman of our party, Chief Dayo Soremi therefore wrote a letter dated February 10, 2011 in which the party gave notice of the change of the party’s candidate from the plaintiff to the first defendant and forwarded the INEC Form CF 004-Notice of Change of Candidate duly signed by the plaintiff to the third defendant”.

    In its own counter affidavit, the third defendant admitted paragraphs 1 to four and denied all other averments of the plaintiff in her affidavit deposed to in support of the originating summons and contended that before the final list of candidates for the general election was released in Ogun State by the third defendant, the second defendant through a letter dated February 10, 2011 notified the commission that Mrs. Atinuke Ajoke (Ayeni) had voluntarily withdrawn as the party’s candidate by signing form CF.004.

    It contended that between the date the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew her candidacy and the date of election, the third defendant never received any counter letter with respect to the voluntary withdrawal of the plaintiff.

     

  • ‘Stop pre-election monetary inducement in Ondo’

    ‘Stop pre-election monetary inducement in Ondo’

    The Ondo State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) yesterday urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to check the alleged pre-election monetary inducement being perpetrated by some politicians.

    It was learnt that the “common wealth” was being distributed to some people during Governor Olusegun Mimiko’s meetings with traders, artisans, community leaders and pressure groups.

    In a statement by its Media Committee’s Secretary Charles Titiloye, the party recalled that INEC kept quiet when the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) raised N21 billion for its campaigns, contrary to the Electoral Act.

    APC said: “We are now witnessing the effect of these illegal investments by the PDP in campaigns through the open distribution of money in Ondo State.

    “Unfortunately, INEC again, has decided to turn away from the pre-election monetary inducement of voters.

    “Free and fair elections are not just about voting but a process that includes the conduct of politicians during electioneering campaigns.

    “Since the inducement of voters is an offence under the Electoral Act, INEC must immediately monitor the campaigns of political parties in Ondo State to prevent the electorate from being heavily compromised before the day of the election.”

  • Senate proposes 180 days for pre-election cases in court

    Senate proposes 180 days for pre-election cases in court

    THE Senate yesterday proposed 180 days within which to hear and dispose of pre-election matters in court.

    The proposal was contained in a supplementary report presented to the Senate by the Chairman, Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, Ike Ekweremadu in Abuja.

    Ekweremadu said the Bill entitled: “A Bill for an Act to further alter the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and for other matters connected therewith, 2013” has been consolidated into the report of the Constitution Review Committee of the Senate.

    He said the provision would be referred to as “Section 285 of the Constitution (Section 9 of the Second Alteration Act) – Time for determination of Pre-election matters.”

    He added an appeal emanating from any pre-election matter shall also be heard and disposed of within 60 days.

    Ekweremadu said: “We recommend that Section 285 of the Constitution be altered by stipulating a time limit within which pre-election matters shall be filed and determined so that they do not linger in the courts for an unusual length of time. Accordingly, a new sub section 1A (i – iv) is provided as follows:

    “(i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 7 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit.

    “(ii) A court in every pre-election matter shall deliver its judgement in writing within 180days from the date of filing of the suit.

    “(iii) An appeal from a decision in a pre-election matter shall be filed within 14 days from the date of delivery of the judgement appealed against.

    “(iv)An appeal from a decision of a court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal.”

    ‘Pre-Election Matter’ in this section according to Ekweremadu means:

    “i. Any suit by an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating the conduct of primaries of political parties and the provisions of the guidelines of a political party for conduct of party primaries has not been complied with by a political party in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election.

    “ii. Any suit by an aspirant challenging the actions, decisions or activities of the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of his participation in an election or who complains that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating elections in Nigeria has not been complied with by the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates and participation in an election.

    “iii. Any suit by a political party challenging the actions, decisions or activities of the Independent National Electoral Commission disqualifying its candidate from participating in an election or a compliant that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any other applicable law has not been complied with by the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of the nomination of candidates of political parties for an election. Timetable for an election, registration of voters and other activities of the Commission in respect of preparation for an election.”

    Also yesterday, Ekweremadu presented another “Bill for an Act to alter the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended 2012 and for other related matters.”

    He said: “This Bill seeks to alter the provision of Part 1 of the First Schedule in order to change the name of “Egbado North” and “Egbado South” Local Government Areas to “Yewa North” and “Yewa South” Local Government Areas respectively.

    “The committee recognizes that this is not a request for local government creation but for change of name of a local government which can be regarded as an alteration. The committee recommends to the Senate to consider the change of name of Egbado North and Egbado South Local Government Areas to Yewa North and Yewa South Local Government Areas pursuant to section 9 of the Constitution.

    “Proposal for the change of name from Afikpo South Local Government Area to Edda Local Government Area

    Senator Gbenga Ashafa noted that the population of Lagos is about 10 per cent of the population of the country.

    He said, “All of us have a pair in Lagos. The image of Lagos is the image of the country. I appeal that the issue of granting Lagos a special status should revisited.”

    The lawmaker opposed autonomy for local government.

    Senators Mohammed Magoro, (Kebbi South), Adamu Gumba (Bauchi South)

    Gyang Pwajok (Plateau North), Ibrahim Gobir (Sokoto), Victor Lar (Plateau South) Abdul Mumuni Hassan. (Jigawa) George Thompson Sekibo (Rivers) Ugboji (Ebonyi), Solomon Ewuga (Nasarawa North) and Robert Ajayi Borofice opposed six year single tenure.

    Contribution by Senators continues today while actual clause by clause voting will be held tomorrow.

  • Edo Tribunal:we can’t rule on pre-election matter

    THE Edo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, sitting in Benin, the state capital, yesterday struck out some paragraphs of the petition filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the July 14 election, Maj.-Gen. Charles Airhiavbere (rtd.).

    Airhiavbere is challenging Governor Adams Oshiomhole’s re-election on the grounds that Oshiomhole lacks the educational qualifications to contest the election and that the poll was marred by irregularities.

    The tribunal said it lacks the jurisdiction to hear pre-election matters and would not entertain issues about the governor’s educational qualifications.

    The Tribunal Chairman, Justice Suleiman Ambursa, said the Electoral Law stipulates that candidates submit copies of their documents to the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) before the election and that INEC publishes such documents, so that any person that is not satisfied with the information contained in them can approach the Federal High Court for appropriate interpretation.

    Justice Ambursa said only paragraph eight of the petition, which is based on electoral irregularities, would be entertained.

    He said: “Any person who has any reasonable ground to contest the educational qualification of the first respondent (Oshiomhole) should seek a declaration in the High Court.

    “We have thoroughly examined all the grounds of the petition. Paragraph eight is the only surviving paragraph on which the petition is valid and competent for the tribunal to hear. The petitioner should proceed on the merit of the remaining paragraph.”

    Justice Ambrusa ruled that INEC and its officials could be joined as respondents in the suit.

    The tribunal will today rule on whether INEC should release sensitive electoral documents to the petitioner.

    Airhiavbere’s counsel Mr. Efe Akpofure said he would consult with his client on the next line of action.

    Akpofure was optimistic that his client would win the case on electoral malpractices.

    Oshiomhole’s counsel Mr. Omoruyi Omonuwa (SAN) said with the striking out of the greater part of the petition, the case is more or less dead.