court dismisses HDP REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM TRIBUNAL
Court dismisses HDP’s request to be removed from presidential petition
President Muhammadu Buhari
The presidential election petition tribunal has dismissed an application brought by a faction of the Hope Democratic Party, seeking its exclusion from the ongoing petition challenging the conduct of the 2019 elections.
The tribunal, in a ruling on Thursday, found the party’s application unmeritorious and consequently dismissed it.
The Hope Democratic Party faction, led by Tapre Poland, had asked the presidential tribunal to remove its name in the petition on the grounds that the instant petition was allegedly brought without their consent.
According to the Poland- led HDP, the first petitioner, Albert Owuru, who leads another faction of the party, approached the tribunal without the consent of the party.
The HDP also alleged that while the petition was seen to have been brought by the first and second petitioners, the documents for the proceedings have, so far, been managed by the first petitioner, without the party’s authorisation.
The Poland-led HDP had, in a written notice to the court, also submitted that the first petitioner, Mr Owuru, has been suspended and requested the court to deal with him as an individual if he wishes to proceed with the petition.
In a supporting argument, the counsel for President Muhammadu Buhari, Wole Olanikpekun, asked the court to consider the request made by the Hope Democratic Party, in the interest of fair hearing.
According to Mr Olanikpekun, the right to sue as a plaintiff is closely related to the right to fair hearing.
He argued that the complaint made by the second petitioner was sufficient to warrant the removal of his name from the ongoing petition.
Mr Olanikpekun further submitted that the removal of the second petitioner’s name from the case is not the same as striking out the petition.
In his part, Mr Owuru, through his lawyer, Chukwunoyerem Njoku, asked the court to determine if it had powers to remove the name of the second petitioner in the instant petition.
The also contended that the counsel for the second petitioner, Anthony Agbolahan was not part of the lawyers recorded as counsel, in the substantive petition.
Mr Owuru, therefore, wondered if the tribunal had powers to entertain a complaint from what he described as “a stranger applicant” in the instant petition.
He further argued that he had chaired the party’s activities during the 2018 convention and added that none of the members of the second petitioner have contested his chairing of the party’s convention, till date.
In its ruling, the court said the application by the second petitioner bordered on an election petition.
“It is the political party that conducts an election, not the candidate. There is no section of the law that allow for independent candidacy.
The court also ruled that the applicants failed to swear to any affidavit to controvert the submissions of the first petitioner that he was a leader of the party.
According to the court, the failure of the party to challenge the said submissions amounted to confirming them.
Consequently, the court held that based on section 12 (1) of the evidence act, there is nothing before the court to show that Hope Democratic Party is against the submissions and Mr Owuru, as regards the leadership of the party.
Therefore, the court said the instant request failed because the party that failed to challenge Mr Owuru’s leadership cannot claim that he is acting against their consent.
The court also dismissed an application by the Independent National Electoral Commission and Mr Buhari, which was aimed at ensuring that the prehearing application by the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) is struck out.
The applicants in this request had argued that the PDM failed to request for permission to file a preheating notice in due time.
That submission was however controverted by the tribunal which held that the PDM filed its request for the tribunal to entertain its prehearing applications in due time.
The tribunal, in a ruling on Thursday, found the party’s application unmeritorious and consequently dismissed it.
The Hope Democratic Party faction, led by Tapre Poland, had asked the presidential tribunal to remove its name in the petition on the grounds that the instant petition was allegedly brought without their consent.
According to the Poland- led HDP, the first petitioner, Albert Owuru, who leads another faction of the party, approached the tribunal without the consent of the party.
The HDP also alleged that while the petition was seen to have been brought by the first and second petitioners, the documents for the proceedings have, so far, been managed by the first petitioner, without the party’s authorisation.
The Poland-led HDP had, in a written notice to the court, also submitted that the first petitioner, Mr Owuru, has been suspended and requested the court to deal with him as an individual if he wishes to proceed with the petition.
In a supporting argument, the counsel for President Muhammadu Buhari, Wole Olanikpekun, asked the court to consider the request made by the Hope Democratic Party, in the interest of fair hearing.
According to Mr Olanikpekun, the right to sue as a plaintiff is closely related to the right to fair hearing.
He argued that the complaint made by the second petitioner was sufficient to warrant the removal of his name from the ongoing petition.
Mr Olanikpekun further submitted that the removal of the second petitioner’s name from the case is not the same as striking out the petition.
In his part, Mr Owuru, through his lawyer, Chukwunoyerem Njoku, asked the court to determine if it had powers to remove the name of the second petitioner in the instant petition.
Mr Owuru, therefore, wondered if the tribunal had powers to entertain a complaint from what he described as “a stranger applicant” in the instant petition.
He further argued that he had chaired the party’s activities during the 2018 convention and added that none of the members of the second petitioner have contested his chairing of the party’s convention, till date.
In its ruling, the court said the application by the second petitioner bordered on an election petition.
“It is the political party that conducts an election, not the candidate. There is no section of the law that allow for independent candidacy.
According to the court, the failure of the party to challenge the said submissions amounted to confirming them.
Consequently, the court held that based on section 12 (1) of the evidence act, there is nothing before the court to show that Hope Democratic Party is against the submissions and Mr Owuru, as regards the leadership of the party.
Therefore, the court said the instant request failed because the party that failed to challenge Mr Owuru’s leadership cannot claim that he is acting against their consent.
The applicants in this request had argued that the PDM failed to request for permission to file a preheating notice in due time.
That submission was however controverted by the tribunal which held that the PDM filed its request for the tribunal to entertain its prehearing applications in due time.
Comments
Post a Comment