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.
News
Source: - The Guardian | August 12, 2017.
Image Source: - Premium Times | July 5, 2017.
