The Abuja Division of the Court
of Appeal has been asked to determine whether President Muhammadu Buhari
supplied false information about his educational qualification and
certificates, in the Form CF001 he submitted to the Independent National
Electoral Commission, INEC, before the 2019 general elections.
The appellate court is in an
appeal marked CA/A/436/2019, further urged to determine whether the office of
the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, is competent to
file processes to defend the allegation that President Buhari lied on oath
about his qualifications.
The appeal was lodged by three
litigants, Kalu Agu, Labaran Ismail and Hassy El-Kuris, who identified
themselves as electorates and taxpayers.
The trio, are challenging the
dismissal of a suit they filed against President Buhari prior to the
presidential election.
Trial Justice Ahmed Mohammed of
the Federal High Court in Abuja had in a judgment last month, dismissed the
suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1310/2018, on the premise that it was statute barred.
Cited as defendants in the matter
were President Buhari, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and INEC.
Meanwhile, in their four grounds
of appeal, the appellant contended that the high court judge erred by relying
on a preliminary objection that was filed on behalf of President Buhari by the
AGF, to dismiss the suit.
Citing several decided cases, the
appellants argued that, “The Attorney General or a lawyer in his office cannot
appear or file processes for the 1st Defendant”.
Besides, they urged the Court of
Appeal to determine, “Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in holding that
the suit was statute-barred by computing the number of days from the 28th day
of September 2018 when the 2nd Respondent held its primary election wherein the
1st Respondent was elected as a candidate of the 2ndRespondent?
“Arising from the foregoing it is
our submission that the Learned Trial Judge was, with respect, wrong to have
held that the objection to the representation by the Attorney General and ipso
facto the processes was belated in that there was no objection to the appearance
of the law officers and that the Appellants reacted to the processes filed. A
court must be guided by the process before it:
“It is evident from the processes
and proceedings before the court that there was a frontal challenge by the
Appellants to the processes filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent by the law
officers. The court was bound to rule on this issue and not sweep it under the
carpet.
“Howbeit, it is further submitted
that it is settled law that the issue of competence of proceedings or a process
cannot be waived when the challenge goes to the fundamental nature of the
process and not merely on a procedural aspect of the process:
“In the circumstances of the
foregoing, we urge Your Lordship to hold that the reliance of the Court on the
processes and the refusal to strike them out was wrong.
“Further, we urge Your Lordship
to reverse the decision of the Court, assume original jurisdiction on the
matter and strike out all the processes filed by the 1st Respondent’s Counsel.
“By Section 31(5) of the
Electoral Act, it is the information given by the 1st Respondent, the candidate
to the 3rd Respondent that is the subject matter of this suit.
“It is, with respect,
inconceivable that, in the light of the clear and express provisions of Section
31 of the Electoral Act and the reliefs sought, the Court reasoned that the
Appellants could be challenging the information set out in a document submitted
to a political party by an aspirant.
“It is, with respect,
self-evident that Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) cannot
be referable to an event occurring at the primary election of a party since the
document in issue is a post-primary document.
“In the instant case it is our
submission that the cause of action is not yet complete until the time “any
person”, in this case, the Appellants, “… has reasonable grounds to believe
that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document
submitted by that candidate is false…” as provided in Section 31(5) of the
Electoral Act. The document in issue in the context of the overall provision of
Section 31 is only referable to a document submitted to the 3rd Respondent
which is the one exhibited and referred to in all the processes before the
court.
“With respect, what the court
below did was to create a situation, not within the contemplation of the law
and upon that basis initiate dismissal of the suit. In the circumstances of the
foregoing we urge Your Lordship to reverse the decision of the Learned Trial
Judge and hold that the suit is not statute barred.
“In conclusion, we submit that
the decision of the Court below be reversed on the following grounds:
“That the processes filed by the
first Respondent are incompetent and ought to be struck out.
“That the suit is not
statute-barred as it does not question any act or event occurring at the 2nd
Respondent’s primary election.
“That the Court assumes
jurisdiction over the suit and grants the reliefs sought at the lower court
since we have demonstrated in paragraph 2:7 above that there is no counter
affidavit known to law in opposition to the Originating Summons and ipso facto
the reliefs sought”, the appellants added.
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everyday
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com