Ibekimi Oriamaja Reports
Jimi Lawal, a candidate for governor in Ogun State, has challenged the decision of the Federal High Court that dismissed his lawsuit challenging the nomination of Dr. Oladipupo Adebutu as the PDP’s governorship candidate.
On July 29, Justice Taiwo Taiwo ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction because the selection of delegates to cast ballots in the governorship primary was solely beyond the purview of a political party.
Lawal had filed lawsuits against Dr. Oladipupo Adebutu, the PDP, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The appellant had argued that his list of delegates differed from the one that had been provided to INEC.
On the grounds that the PDP constitution and rules, as well as the requirements of the Electoral Act of 2022, had not been followed, Lawal had contested the way the governorship primary was conducted.
Lawal disagreed with Justice Taiwo’s ruling that the matters in dispute relate to the domestic affairs of a political party over which the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the notice of appeal he filed through his attorney Ola Olanipekun (SAN).
He claimed that the trial judge disregarded the case’s merits.
When the judge partially upheld the respondent’s notice of preliminary objection and declined to hear the appellant’s case, the appellant claimed that the judge committed a legal error.
Lawal claims that the first respondent (PDP) violated the terms of Section 84 (1), (2), (5)(b), and (8) of the Electoral Act as well as Article 25(1)(L) & (2)(C) of the party’s constitution and guidelines in the way the primary was conducted on May 25. This was the focus of his suit, as stated in his Originating Summons.
He contended that the judge erred in holding that the litigation had a tenuous connection to the party’s internal operations and was not a pre-election matter as defined under the 1999 Constitution.
The third respondent was elected in the PDP primary, which the appellant claimed raised questions about whether it was conducted in accordance with the Electoral Act and PDP’s constitution.
He argued that in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ufomba v. INEC (2017) and other cases, the courts have the authority to determine whether a party’s primary election was conducted in accordance with the law.
According to Lawal, the failure to use the candidates who won the ward congresses for the governorship primary elections amounted to a serious infraction of the Electoral Act as well as the party’s constitution and guidelines.
“The trial court missed the essence of the appellant’s complaint, which challenged the first respondent’s breach of the Electoral Act and its constitution and rules, by adopting a “limited construction” of the appellant’s claim.
The trial judge’s decision that the appellant had standing to bring the case but that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it was incongruous.
The trial court “ought to have followed the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ufomba v. INEC to the effect that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s suit questioning whether the primary election complied with the Electoral Act’s provisions and the first respondent’s constitution and guidelines,” according to the doctrine of judicial precedent.
The appellant presented six grounds for appeal and sought the Court of Appeal to rule that the trial judge’s final decision was against election law and binding appellate court rulings.
The dismissal of his case, he continued, was “perverse.”
Lawal sought the Court of Appeal to overturn a portion of Justice Taiwo’s ruling that the concerns concerned the party’s internal affairs and rule on the merits of the substantive complaint identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/773/2022.
He also asked for an order granting the requested reliefs.
