The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Thursday dismissed a a suit seeking to nullify the Presidential candidates of All Progressives Congress,APC Alhaji Ahmed Bola Tinubu and that of People’s Democratic Party, PDP.Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.
Justice Inyang Ekwo the trial court judge also dissolved the Incorporated
Trustees of Rights for all International ,RIA, who instituted the legal action for acting outside ,under the law of CAMA that established it.
The Trustees of Rights for all International and former minister of State for Education Hon. Chukwuemeka Nwajiba had instituted the action praying the court for an order to nullify PDP and APC special national conventions held on the 28″ and 29″ of May 2022 and 6 and 7 of June 2022 respectively for being charade and violation of their Constitution.
The plaintiffs in the suit also wanted the nullification of the special national conventions of both APC and PDP on ground of illegality, voter inducement and corruption.
Delivering judgment on the suit ,the judge said that after a careful consideration of the preliminary objections filed by Ahmed Tinubu and Atiku Abubakar the court found that the plaintiffs lacks locus standi, that is the legal right to initiate the action.
The court discountenance the çontent of the affidavit in support of the originating summons deposed to by a clerk in the office of the plaintiff counsel as a third party witness.
The deponent was not a participant and was bereft of “from having direct opportunity to ascertain the veracity of the facts of the case. Thus, the deponent has become third party witnesses”
Justice Ekwo said that if the content of the affidavit were to be believe, it should have be deposed by the second plaintiff, Nwajiba, who claimed he scored a vote at the primary and was directly affected .
The court also held that the preliminary objections succeeded because the 1st plaintiff ‘The Trustees of Rights for all International’ lacked locus standi to initiate political motivated litigation.
“The litigation secretary of the Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Counsel himself have by their act made the evidence of the Plaintiffs inadmissible. By this fact the entire evidence of the Plaintiffs in support of their Originating Summons are hereby discountenanced”, the judge held.
The judge also found that there was “no credible evidence in support of this case. Therefore, this case fails for lack credible evidence.
“I make an order dismissing this case for lacking in merit. Before now, 1 fad found that the 1* Plaintiff by this initiating this action has engaged itself‘ ‘ in an activity that is contrary to its objectives as
provided for S. 823 (1) and 825 (1) (b) of the CAMA 2020.
This means that the 1st Plaintiff has acted ultra vires the provisions of the law by which it obtained its registration.
“It Is illegal for an association registered under Part F of CAMA 2020 to undertake any activity which is not authorized by law. Part F of the CAMA 2020 did not make provision for the registration of association with political motives, neither does the registration allow the pursuit of political activity by such association, he held.