Court dismissed the lawsuit seeking to exclude Kola Abiola from running for president of the PRP

On Thursday, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a lawsuit brought by a candidate named Madam Patience Key to contest the selection of Mr. Kola Abiola as the Peoples Redemption Party, PRP, presidential candidate.

According to a ruling by Justice Ahmed Mohammed, the lawsuit was out of time and the court lacked the authority to hear it.

According to Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, the lawsuit should have been filed within 14 days of the date the cause of action occurred, according to Justice Mohammed, who ruled that it was a pre-election matter.

Although the PRP presidential election was held on June 5, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit on June 28, which was after the case should have been started no later than June 19. The judge agreed with the defendants on this point.

Even though Madam Key made serious claims about how the election was run, such as that it was tainted by fraud, buying votes, not following Section 84 of the Electoral Act, and breaking the party’s rules for how primaries should be run, Mohammed said that these could not be more important than the fact that the case was not filed on time.

As a result, the judge dismissed the case, claiming that it was statute-barred and thus ineligible for hearing.

According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), the plaintiff, Key, filed a lawsuit on June 28 against PRP, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Mr. Latifu Abiola.

In her first summons, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1001/2022, Key had questioned, among other things, why Mr. Abiola was chosen as the party’s presidential candidate.

She had asked the court, among other things, to throw out the poll that had chosen Abiola as the PRP’s presidential candidate.

In an amended originating summons granted by the court on August 31 and filed on September 2, the plaintiff asked the court to set aside PRP’s submission of Abiola’s name to INEC on June 15 as the presidential candidate and flag-bearer for the 2023 election. This was because of serious violations of the party’s rules for how primaries should be run and the Electoral Act.

She claimed that, among other things, the party had violated the Electoral Act of 2022’s Section 84(5)(b)(i) and (ii), the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Political Party Primaries, and Article 5(13(a)(i-ix) of the PRP’s Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for the 2023 General Election.

She claimed that the Electoral Act’s mandate that the primary be held in a single location was broken because the presidential primary was held in all 36 states and the FCT.

In addition, Key asserted that INEC did not illegally monitor the presidential primary on June 5 and supported her claim with the precedent-setting case of Uche Nwosu vs. APP.

However, the defendants maintained that the suit was statute barred and belated in a subsequent revision of Abiola and PRP’s rebuttal affidavits, which were dated and submitted on Nov. 5.

Also, they denied that the party’s presidential primary election was only held in the Federal Capital Territory, which was against Paragraphs 4a and 4b of the affidavit supporting the modified originating summons.

They said that INEC was told about the process correctly and that it kept an eye on how the election was run.

In a phone call with NAN soon after the incident, Madam Key said that even though she hadn’t expected the verdict, she wasn’t surprised by it either.

She recalled that Justice Fadima Aminu had once heard the case in addition to Justice Mohammed, who made the decision.

“Justice Fadima Aminu also heard the case, and after we changed it, she approved it, citing the examples my lawyer had given to back up our new originating summons.

But Justice Aminu was abruptly dismissed from the case. Even though Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed had not yet returned from his unexpected vacation, she was not even permitted to sit during the following session.

“I want to inspire my squad and supporters to maintain composure, joy, and bravery. “We have not fallen back,” she declared.

She said she would talk with her lawyers to figure out what to do next.

“I cherish Nigeria.” Although I adore the party I picked, I will not support injustice. Even if I’m the only one standing, I’ll still be there. And I have hope that there are still lots of excellent Nigerians out there who sincerely want to see Nigeria succeed. “God bless my lovely nation of Nigeria,” she proclaimed.

However, Benjamin Ogar, the PRP’s attorney, declared himself overjoyed with the case’s outcome. Ogar claimed that the judge had just reaffirmed a well-established legal concept that would endure the test of time.