BEVERLY HILLS, March 24, (THEWILL) – A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has stopped the national leadership of All Progressives Congress (APC) from fielding Mr. Yejide Ogundipe as its House of Representatives candidate for Odigbo/ile-Oluji/Oke-igbo in Ondo State in the March 28 National Assembly election.
Instead, the court ordered the party to replace Ogundipe with one Festus Ayodele Adefiranye, having won the highest number of votes in the primary election conducted by the party.
The order was sequel to a suit instituted by Adefiranye through his lawyer, James Anietor, challenging the substitution of his name with that of Ogundipe by the party.
Yejide Ogundipe, APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are joined as defendants in the suit .
Adefiranye had told the court through an exhibit that he came first in the primary election held after scoring the highest number of votes.
He added that he was shocked when the national leadership of the party forwarded the name of Ogundipe who came second in the primary election to INEC.
However, the defendants had submitted that it was the appeal panel of the party that discovered that there was error in the counting and based on the petition by Ogundipe carried out a re-counting where the first defendant later emerged as the winner.
The plaintiff however submitted that the re-counting was not done in his presence and hence his right to fair hearing was breached.
Though the defendants had earlier asked the court to decline jurisdiction to entertain the matter on ground that it was an internal affair of the party, the trial judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, in his ruling , held that by Section 87 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010, the Federal High Court was empowered to hear such electoral matter.
The court also held that the instant case could not be treated as an internal affairs of the party since the proceeding of the appeal panel had been faulted.
According to the judge, “having listened to the submissions of all counsel in the suit, it is obvious from the exhibit that the plaintiff was not present when the appeal panel was recounting the votes.”
He added: “Reading through APC guidelines, there is no provision which empowers appeal committee to recount. And even if it has the power, the principle of fair hearing should be employed by allowing the plaintiff to be there when they are recounting. The proceedings of the appeal committee is flawed.
“On jurisdiction, I do not agree with the issues canvassed by the defendants that court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
“Section of the 87(9) Electoral Act 2010 and S251 of the 1999 Constitution confers jurisdiction on Federal High Court to hear electoral matter.
” All the grounds of objection did not persuade me. On the submission of the 2nd defendant to order pleadings, there is no dispute in the fact before the court to attract pleading. Doing this will not be justice.
“The decision of the National Working Committee of the party having its origin on the appeal panel report cannot be trusted because it was based on a faulty foundation. I am more persuaded by the submissions of the plaintiff.
”The case of the plaintiff succeeds, all the reliefs sought are granted. The name of the first defendant shall be removed by the third defendant and be replaced by that of the plaintiff for the March 28 National Assembly elections.”
