The speed and rate at which featherweight and pretentious members of the opposition parties, especially their Candidates/Aspirants rushed to courts to file frivolous suits challenging the primaries and the candidacies of the well chosen aspirants of the ruling and dominant parties in the States ahead of the 2023 general elections is very abusive, baselessly alarming , disgusting and preposterous.
It has been noted and it is on record that this kind of action has become a parading norm or practice across the states in the country since after the primary elections of the political parties ahead of the forthcoming general elections where the weak candidates and their opposition platforms resorted to forum shopping from one court to another to seek the possibility of nullifying the primary elections of the major parties. These groups of wrestling failures live with dubious mindset of spoil the show syndrome.
The usual practice is that immediately after filing such frivolous suits, they will take the stamped copies to social media to hype it and make it look like a strong case, all in a bid to hoodwink the public and see if they can distract the defendants.
It is disappointing and surprising that even those who ought to know better including lawyers in their midst join them in peddling and hyping such cases on social media, forgetting that legal issues are not settled or decided on social media and that the judiciary stands as the final arbiter and cannot be intimidated or swayed by social media ambush or mob.
One of such cases in Enugu State was filed by one Chika Idoko of the virtually unknown African Democratic Congress (ADC) against the PDP and its candidates. The way and manner some labourers in Nsukka and others surrounding environs have been hyping and celebrating the jokers makes one to wonder how their mindset flows, as they believe in the streets the rumours that the game is up against the ruling party. Some of them beat their chests in declaring that all PDP candidates in Enugu State would be disqualified from participating in the general elections. "Oh my God. Illiteracy is a deadly disease. One is deformed, if not informed."
To those that celebrate their wishes when they are not horses, the unfortunate sledge hammer of the Apex Court of our land per Clentus Nweze JSC has settled the nonsense.
The Supreme Court had in her judgment in a pre -election matter between Senator Adeleke Ademola (PDP) and Adegboyega Oyetola (APC) on February 2nd, 2023 laid to rest this useless practice by some desperate politicians and lawyers.
Delivering judgment in the Adeleke of PDP appeal challenging the primary election that produced Oyetola and his deputy, Benedict Alabi, a five-member panel of justices, in a unanimous judgment led by Justice Centus Nweze, said the appeal by the PDP lacked merit.
They therefore directed the lawyer to the PDP, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) to withdraw it.
The Supreme Court panel noted that the PDP could not, under the law, question the process leading to the emergence of Oyetola and Benedict Alabi as candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the election.
The judgment of the Apex Court which will now be referenced henceforth as judicial precedent has foreclosed all the judicial shenanigans and abracadabra of some meddlesome interlopers who have been shopping from one court to another questioning and interrogating the processes and outcome of the primaries of political parties that they are niether aspirants nor members.
The judgment has cleared the air on the misinterpretation of section 285(13) of the Constitution which provides that ANY aspirant who believes that ANY political party breached ANY provisions of the electoral Act in the conduct of its primaries that produced its candidates can approach the Federal High Court for redress.
Some people especially desperate politicians and lawyers that are not well informed had misinterpreted the word ANY aspirant, in the section, to mean aspirants of any political party and not only aspirant of a particular political party which the affected aspirant belongs to. The fact which I believe is the law is that the ASPIRANT referred to in that section is an aspirant of a political party and not aspirant of another political party. It therefore follows that an aspirant of another political party challenging the process of the conduct of primaries of another political party will definitely lack the locus standi to so do in view of the intendment of section 285 of the Constitution.
Further more, the interpretation of Section 84 of the Electoral Act is straight and devoid of any contextual ambiguity. This very Section of the Act specifically stated the capacity under which a person can challenge the outcome of a party's primary election. The Act laid specific emphasis on any Aspirant within the political party and NOT a busy body from another political party.
){kind=link}