...By Lola Smith for TDPel Media.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled a new date for the continuation of a lawsuit seeking to prevent the swearing-in of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu as the President of Nigeria.
The case revolves around the controversy surrounding the allocation of 25% of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.
Questions to Address before Proceeding:
During the hearing, the court emphasized that the plaintiffs must answer three crucial questions through their lawyers before the case can proceed.
These questions pertain to the right to appear in court (locus standi), jurisdiction, and whether the case is already being heard by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.
Lawsuit Details and Reliefs Sought:
The lawsuit was filed by individuals who identified themselves as registered voters in the FCT, Abuja.
They seek declarations that no state can simultaneously be the FCT for any purpose, that a presidential candidate must obtain at least 25% of the votes in the FCT to be declared elected President, and that a candidate must have obtained 25% of the votes in the FCT to be validly sworn in as President.
They also request an order to suspend any declaration or issuance of a Certificate of Return to any candidate until it is judicially determined that the candidate fulfills the conditions stated in the Constitution.
Defendants and Adjournment:
The Attorney-General of the Federation and the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) are cited as the 1st and 2nd defendants in the case.
However, during the hearing, Justice Inyang Ekwo informed the plaintiffs’ lawyer that the case has been adjourned to May 18.
This adjournment allows the lawyer to provide answers to the court regarding locus standi, jurisdiction, and whether the case is already before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.
The scheduling of a fresh date for the continuation of the lawsuit against the swearing-in of Bola Tinubu as President highlights the legal challenges and controversies surrounding the electoral process in Nigeria.
The questions raised by the court concerning locus standi, jurisdiction, and potential overlapping with the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal indicate the need for clarity and proper legal procedures in addressing such matters.
The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs reflect their concerns regarding the validity and legitimacy of the electoral process, particularly in relation to the FCT.
This case raises important constitutional questions regarding the requirements for a candidate to be elected and sworn in as President, as well as the determination of a successor following an election.
The adjournment granted by the court provides an opportunity for the plaintiffs’ lawyer to provide the necessary information and arguments, while also allowing for a fair and thorough examination of the case.
This demonstrates the court’s commitment to upholding due process and ensuring that all relevant legal aspects are properly addressed.