BY TheCable
Segun Oni, a governorship aspirant of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ekiti state, has denied filing a suit against the candidacy of Kayode Fayemi in the Ekiti governorship election, sources in his camp have told TheCable.
This is contrary to the story published by TheCable on Monday night that he has filed a suit at federal high court in Abuja to challenge the emergence of Fayemi, former minister of mines and steel, as the party’s flagbearer in the July 14 governorship poll.
The “originating summons” sent to TheCable have now been traced to “agents” of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ekiti state, sources said.
The “agents” are accused of leaking the document when it had not been filed in court.
Fayemi, who polled a total of 941 votes at the primary which held on May 12, defeated Oni, his closest rival, by a margin of over 460 votes.
But Oni, in the “originating summons”, asked the court to determine if it was proper for his opponent to contest the primary without resigning as a member of the federal cabinet.
He also purportedly asked the court to determine if Fayemi’s action did not violate the Nigerian constitution and the guidelines of the ruling party primary.
The suit was purportedly filed on his behalf by Gani Faniyi, a lawyer.
“Whether by virtue of All Progressives Congress constitution and particularly Articles 2 and 5 of All Progressive Congress 2014 Guidelines for the nomination of candidates for public office as applicable to the A.P.C Governorship primaries conducted on the 12th May, 2018, the 1st Defendant being a serving member of the Federal Executive and Federal Minister of Solid Minerals, Mines and Steel Development having not resigned his appointment as a member of Federal Executive and Minister of Solid Mineral, Mines and Steel Development, at all or at least 30 days to the said primaries election of 12th May, 2018 was qualified to contest and participate in the said All Progressive Congress Governorship primaries of 12th May, 2018 as an aspirant in that election,” the document read.
“Whether by virtue of All Progressive Congress Constitution and particularly Articles 2 and 5 of All Progressive Congress 2014 Guidelines for the nomination of candidates for public office as applicable to the A.P.C Governorship primaries conducted on the 12th May, 2018, at Damilek Event Centre, Ado-Ekiti for the purpose of determining or nominating the 2nd Defendant candidate for the 12th July Ekiti State Governorship election, the 1st Defendant having being indicted by Rtd. Hon. Justice Oyewole Judicial Panel of Enquiry was qualified to contest and participate in the said All Progressives Congress Governorship primary of 12th May, 2018 as an aspirant in that election.”
Among the reliefs Oni was purportedly seeking are: “A declaration that the claimant (Oni) having scored 481 votes which is the majority of lawful and valid votes at the 2nd Defendant (APC) the 12th May, 2018 A.P.C Governorship primaries election for the purpose of determining the 2nd Defendant’s candidate for the 14th July 2018 election for the office of Governor Ekiti State is the person that was validly nominated by the 2nd Defendant for the 14th July, 2018 election for the office of Governor, Ekiti state.”
Fayemi resigned on May 30 and later appointed Opeyemi Bamidele, a governorship aspirant of the APC, as the director-general of his campaign.
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BETWEEN ADEBAYO SEGUN ONI (CLAIMANT) AND JOHN KAYODE FAYEMI, ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS, INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (DEFENDANTS)
ORIGINATING SUMMONS
LET ALL THE defendants above named within 30 days after the service of this summon inclusive of the day of such service cause an appearance to be entered for them to this summons which is issued upon the application of the Plaintiffs who seek the following:
QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION
RELIEFS SOUGHT
If the answers to the above questions are in the affirmative, then the Plaintiffs seek the following reliefs:
Dated this 21stDay of June, 2018
—————————————–
Gani Faniyi Esq.
Suleiman OlatunjiYahaya, Esq.
Claimant’s Counsel,
OLORIAJE & CO.
2nd Floor, Theodak House,
Opposite National Hospital,
Central Business District,
Abuja.
08036486185
This Summons was taken out by Suleiman OlatunjiYahaya of A.O. OLORIAJE & CO., 2nd Floor, Theodak House, Opposite National Hospital, Central Business District, Abuja, on behalf of the above named Plaintiffs.
NOTE:
Dated this 21stDay of June, 2018
…………………………….…………
JUDGE/REGISTRAR
FOR SERVICE ON:
1st DEFENDANT
Isan Ekiti, Ekiti Stateor
C/o Ekiti State APC Secretariat,
Ajilosun, Ado-Ekiti.
2nd DEFENDANT
All Progressives Congress
APC National Secretariat,
No. 40, Blantrye Street,
Wuse II,
Abuja, FCT.
3rd DEFENDANT
National Independent Electoral Commission,
National Headquarters,
Abuja.
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA
SUIT NO:……………………………………….
BETWEEN
ADEBAYO SEGUN ONI ……………………………….……… CLAIMANT
AND
JOHN KAYODE FAYEMI, ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS, INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION (DEFENDANTS)
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS
I SAMUEL ADAMU, Male, Christian, Adult, Litigation Clerk of A.O. OLORIAJE & CO., 2nd Floor, Theodak House, Opposite National Hospital, Central Business District, Abuja, and a Nigeria citizen do hereby solemnly swear and make oath as follows:
S/N | NAMES OF ASPIRANTS | SCORES | PERCENTAGE |
1 | ABIODUN AMUDIPE FADEKE | 0 | 0 |
2 | ADEBOMI EBENEZER SUNDAY E | 1 | 0.043066322 |
3 | ADESUA BARNABAS OLADIRAN | 4 | 0.172265289 |
4 | ADEYANJI SUNDAY BODUNDE | 3 | 0.129198966 |
5 | AJAYI ADEBOWALE OLURANTI | 1 | 0.043066322 |
6 | AKERELE OLUYINKA G. | 11 | 0.473729543 |
7 | ALABI KOLAWOLE OLADIPUPO | 14 | 0.60292851 |
8 | ALOBA ADEBISI WATSON | 7 | 0.301464255 |
9 | ALUKO DANIEL OLUGBENGA | 86 | 3.703703704 |
10 | ARISE AYODELE | 2 | 0.086132644 |
11 | BAMIDELE MICHAEL OPEYEMI | 8 | 0.344530577 |
12 | BAMISILE RICHARD OLUFEMI | 179 | 7.708871662 |
13 | COKER OLUMUYIWA | 2 | 0.086132644 |
14 | DARAMOLA OLUWAFEMI ABIMBOLA | 28 | 1.20585702 |
15 | ELEDUMARE OGUNKOYAE OLADIPO A | 1 | 0.043066322 |
16 | ESAN ADEKUNLE PATRICK | 0 | 0 |
17 | FAPARUSI BAMIDELE | 23 | 0.990525409 |
18 | FATOBA JOSEPH SESAN | 43 | 1.851851852 |
19 | FAYEMI JOHN KAYODE | 941 | 40.52540913 |
20 | KOLADE VICTOR OLUMUYIWA | 16 | 0.689061154 |
21 | MATESUN ELEZABETH TAYE | 1 | 0.043066322 |
22 | OJUDU BABAFEMI | 10 | 0.430663221 |
23 | OKEYA DELE | 13 | 0.559862188 |
24 | AJAYI OLATUNJIOLOWO | 2 | 0.086132644 |
25 | OLOFINLUYI OLATUNJIU TOSIN | 14 | 0.60292851 |
26 | KAYODE OLUBUNMI OJO | 281 | 12.10163652 |
27 | OLULEYE OLUWOLE BAMIDELE | 6 | 0.258397933 |
28 | OLUMILUA OLUMUYIWA M. | 2 | 0.086132644 |
29 | OLUYEDE OLUWAMAYOKUN OLUWOLE | 121 | 5.211024978 |
30 | ONI SEGUN | 481 | 20.71490095 |
31 | ORIRE ANDREW ADEBAYO | 3 | 0.129198966 |
32 | OWOLABI MAKANJUOLA A. | 5 | 0.215331611 |
33 | YAYA KOLADE CHRISTIANA | 4 | 0.172265289 |
INVALID | 11 | ||
2313 |
……………………
DEPONENT
Sworn to at the Federal High Court Registry,
Abuja, this…………… day of…….……………………, 2018.
BEFORE ME
……………………..…………………………..
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
SUIT NO:……………………………………………….
BETWEEN
ADEBAYO SEGUN ONI ……………………………….……… CLAIMANT
AND
JOHN KAYODE FAYEMI
ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS DEFENDANTS
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION
WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS
iii. Pursuant to their intention they both obtained nomination form for fees from the 2nd Defendant.
vii. The 1st defendant who participated in the primary election of 12th May, 2018 admitted he did not resign from his office as Federal Minister.
viii. It is a public knowledge that the 1st Defendant was indicted for public embezzlement of public funds by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry and the said indictment was accepted and gazetted by the Ekiti State Government.
2.00 LEGAL ARGUMENT
2.01 The right of a political party to sponsor or nominate its candidate is no longer absolute or exercisable at whims and caprices of the political party. The best and international practices are for the party to operate and be guided by its own set Constitution and set Guidelines issued by the same party in the nomination process.
2.02 A political party either registered as so from the beginning or emerged as a product of merger of other political parties like 2nd defendant is obliged to give to itself a constitution and Guidelines that will guide and regulate its affairs and activities. The obligation is statutory. By section 84 (3) (b) of Electoral Act (2010) as amended, such constitution amongst other items must be registered with the 3rd Defendant.
2.03 In determining any disputes arising from the conduct of a party’s primary election particularly the eligibility or qualification of a member of a political party to contest in primary election organized by the party, the ground norm that will be called in is the party Constitution and the Guidelines issued by the party for the regulation and guidance of that primary election. In Zaranda V. Tilde (2008) 10 NWLR (PT 1094) Page 184 @ 206 the court of Appeal relying on RIMI V INEC &Anor (2005) 6 NWLR (PT 920) 56 held;
“But let it be understood from the outset that nomination of candidate for various party elective office for the purpose of an election are purely governed as of now in this country, by the rules governing preliminaries to election. Such preliminary rules are those which determine intra-party resolution and nominations to elective offices. Thus, they, postulate the relationship between the political party in question, its members and the electoral body.”
Underlined for emphasis
2.04 The rules which must purely and strictly govern eligibility to participate, conduct and processes of nominating a candidate are the set of Guidelines issued by a political party pursuant to and in conformingly with the said party’s Constitution and Electoral Act. That party’s primary election must be strictly conducted in compliance with the party Guidelines had been given statutory flesh and flavor to the extent that a violation of any party extant guidelines in the conduct and participation in a party’s primary election must have legal consequences. Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended provided thus:
“Notwithstanding the provision of this Act or rules of a Political Party aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the Guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court of a State or FCT for redress.”
2.05 Submit that the import of 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, which came into being after 2002 Electoral Act is to make sure that the court apply the necessary legal consequence to the breach of any provision of a party Guidelines on qualification of members to participate in the primary election, conductand the result of the primary election itself. In Ogah v Ikpeazu& 3ors (2017) 5-6 S.C (PT 1) Pg 51 per Onnoghen C.J.N held;
“By the operation of section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, any aspirant in a primary election of a political party who feels aggrieved by the conduct and result of the election has the right to approach the court for redress…… provided that he institutes his action before the conduct of the general election or election for which the primary was to nominate a candidate”.
2.06 The essence of introducing provisions of S. 87 (9) into our law is to cloth the court with coercive power and jurisdiction of holding a political party bound by every provisions in its constitution and Guidelines issued by it to guideits members on one hand and regulates the conduct of its primary election. A political party is duly bound to obey strictly every provision in its constitution and Guidelines. In Shinkafi v Vari (2016) 7 NWLR 1511 page 340 @375 para. D-E per Okoro J.S.C held;
“However, it is now trite that where a political party conducts its primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary election complains about its conduct of the primaries, the court have jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended to examine if the conduct of the primary was in accordance with the party’s Constitution and Guidelines. The reason is that in the conduct of its primaries, the court will never allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as it likes. A political party must obey its constitution”.
Underlined for Emphasis
2.07 In compliance with Electoral Act, the 2nd Defendant gave to itself a Constitution and registered it with the 3rd Defendant. That is Exhibit B. Exhibit Bin Article 13.4 (v) provides thus in relation to the power of the National Working Committee of the 2nd Defendant:
“Propose to the National Executive Committee, party electoral regulations, to govern the conduct of election to all party offices at every level and to govern the procedure for selecting party candidates for elective offices, subject to the provisions of this Constitution”.
2.08 Pursuant to the above, the 2nd Defendant through its constitutionally created organs issued its 2014 Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for Public Office Exhibit C. This is the extant Guidelines that governed the 2ndDefendant 14th May, 2018 Ekiti State Governorship Election. Exhibit C in law governs purely and strictly the minimum qualification a member of the party seeking to contest as an aspirant in any primary election like the one under reference must possess. The provisions of this guidelines strictly and purely govern eligibility/qualification to participate in the said primary election and as well as the conduct of the primary election.
2.09 To make sure that a member of the 2nd Defendant seeking to participate in its primary election as an aspirant meets the minimum qualification or pass the test of eligibility to contest as aspirant in its primary election, such member after obtaining a nomination form and payment of nomination fees must subject himself to a screening exercise conducted by the 2nd Defendant before participating in the primary election itself. Such screening is conducted strictly and purely on the provisions of the party’s constitution and Guidelines.
2.10 By provisions of paragraph 2 of the 2nd defendant’s Guidelines under reference, any aspirant seeking public office on the platform of the party shall not have;
2.11 In the instant case and from the affidavit evidence, the 1st defendant was one of the Federal Ministers appointed by the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Sometimes in 2015 and remained in office, and in fact participated as aspirant in the 2nd Defendant organized primary election of 12th May, 2018 for the purpose of selecting the 2nd defendant candidate for 14th July, 2018 Ekiti State Governorship Election while still in his employment or office as Federal Minister, in flagrant disobedience to the 2nd defendant2014 Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidate for Public Office.
2.12 No doubt, the 1st Defendant at all times material to the primary election under reference was a public officer, remained in public office and contested while in public as aspirant in the primary election, the subject matter of this suit. By his appointment as a Federal Minister, 1st Defendant is a member of Federal Executive Council.The appointment of a Federal Minister into employment of the Government of the Federation is governed by the S.147 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. The 1st Defendant was screened and had his appointment confirmed by the National Assembly. From the above, the 1st Defendant is in law and in fact a person in the employment of public service.
2.13 By the express provisions of the 2014 Guidelines for the Nomination of candidates for public office, Article 2, paragraph v thereof, the fact of 1st Defendant participating as an aspirant in the primary election of 12th May, 2018, organized by the 2nd Defendant for the selection of 2nd Defendant’s candidate for 14thJuly, 2018 Ekiti State GovernorshipElection while he was still in the service of the Federation as a public officer is a clear violation of Article 2 paragraph5 of the said 2nd Defendant Guidelines. The 1st Defendant’s refusal or failure to leave or resign from his office as a Federal Minister disqualified him from participating as an aspirant in the said 12th May, 2018 2nd Defendantorganized primary election for failure to meet minimum requirement that would have made him eligible to participate in the said primary election as expressly provided for in the 2nd Defendant Guidelines governing the eligibility of members of the 2nd Defendant, including the claimant and the 1st Defendant to participate in the primary election and the conduct of the said primary election.
2.14 Apart from the established fact of non-resignation of the 1st Defendant from his office as Federal Minister before participating in the primary election in dispute, the 1st Defendant indictment for fraud and embezzlement of public fund by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry Law Cap to C10, Laws of Ekiti State 2012 and which said indictment was accepted by the Government of Ekiti State as evidence in Exhibit D also rendered the 1st Defendant ineligible to participate in the primary election under consideration.
2.15 By the express provisions of 2014 constitution of 2nd Defendant and the Guidelines issued by the same party for the nomination of its candidate, Article 2 paragraph 6 thereof a member of the 2nd Defendant who is indicted by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry and which said indictment has been accepted by State or Federal Government is not eligible to participate in any primary election including the primary election of 12th May, 2018 organized by the 2nd Defendant and therefore not by the party Constitution and Guidelines qualified to participate in the primary election of 12thMay, 2018 under reference.
2.16 Submit that in selecting/nominating candidatesfor public office and election, a political party must strictly adhere to the provisions of its constitution and guidelines specially issued for guidance for the nomination processes. In Emeka v Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt 1331) pg 53 @ 105paras. D-G Adekeye J.S.C (as he then was) held;“It is stipulated in the Party Constitution and the relevant party guidelines that any primary shall be conducted by the National Executive Committee of the PeoplesDemocratic Party with the officials of Independent National Electoral Commission in attendance. The foregoing must be strictly adhered to in the nomination of a candidate. Any candidate who emerged in compliance with this procedure shall be deemed to be the only authentic nominees of the party. In this appeal, the only choose of the PeoplesDemocratic Party in the primaries conducted in the regular manner by the National Executive Committee on the 8th of January 2011 was the 1st respondent Lady MargeryOkadigbo.”
Underlined for emphasis
2.17 The Legal consequence of the 1st Defendant failure to meet the minimum requirement of resigning from Public Office before participating in the 12thMay. 2018 2nd Defendant organized primary election and the fact of his indictment by judicial commission of inquiry is that his participation in the said primary election is invalid, null and void and any votes credited to him will be treated as invalid and wasted.
2.18 Submit that in the peculiar circumstances of the 2nd defendant 2014 Guidelines which strictly governed and regulated the eligibility to participate as aspirant in the primary election organized by the 2nd defendantorganized primary election and the conduct of the primary itself, the sanction/consequence of noncompliance with anyprovision of the Guidelines in question had been expressly provided. According to the Guidelines;“violation of any of these Guidelines shall attract automatic disqualification”.The court is duty-bound tointerpret the provisions of the said guidelines and strictly apply them. The court is also obliged to ensure that the 2nd defendant obey the provisions of the Guidelines strictly.
2.19 From the scores of the Claimant and the other various aspirants who participated in the primary election under consideration, the claimant scored the 2nd highest lawfulvotes. The law is settled that where an aspirant or candidate in either a primary election or general election is declared ineligible or suffered any form of disqualification form participating in the election where he is purportedly declared and returned as a winner on a number of votes credited to him, the votes credited to the disqualified aspirant or candidate are regarded and treated as wasted votes and the aspirant or candidate with the 2nd highest votes is declared and returned as winner instead.
3.00 CONCLUSION
Finally, Your Lordship is urged to find in favour of the Claimant by holding that the 1st Defendant was not lawfully/validly nominated and did not therefore score majority of valid votes cast at the 2nd Defendant organized Primary Election of 12th May, 2018 are wasted votes that should not be reckoned with in the computation of valid votes cast at the said Primary Election in line with EJIOGU vs. IRONA (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1132) 513 @ 560 – 561. The consequence of which is that the Claimant is the winner of the Primary Election and should be declared as such.
Dated this 21stDay of June, 2018
——————————–
GaniFaniyi Esq.
Suleiman OlatunjiYahaya, Esq.
Claimant’s Counsel,
2nd Floor, Theodak House,
Opposite National Hospital,
Central Business District,
Abuja.
08036486185
FOR SERVICE ON:
IsanEkiti, Ekiti State or
C/o Ekiti State APC Secretariat,
Ajilosun, Ado-Ekiti.
All Progressives Congress
APC National Secretariat,
No. 40, Blantrye Street,
Wuse II,
Abuja, FCT.
National Independent Electoral Commission,
National Headquarters,
Abuja.
This website uses cookies.