News
Court Dismisses Lawsuit Seeking To Disqualify Tinubu From The 2023 Elections
A lawsuit seeking the disqualification of the All Progressives Congress and its presidential candidate, Bola Tinubu, over the nomination of a Muslim-Muslim candidate for the 2023 election was dismissed on Wednesday by Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed of a Federal High Court in Abuja.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit brought by Abuja-based attorney Osigwe Ahmed Momoh on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked locus standi.
According to Justice Mohammed, a lawyer cannot question Tinubu or Kashim Shetima about their nominations because they are not APC members and did not take part in the selection process that led to their nomination.
the legal professional had asked the court in the lawsuit for an order nullifying the candidature of APC and Tinubu from taking part in the presidential election, using the argument that the nomination of a Muslim-Muslim candidate was illegal and went against the spirit and letter of sections 14, 15, and 224 of the 1999 constitution.
The lawyer, who identified himself as an advocate for social justice and the rule of law, made the specific argument that the nomination of a Muslim-Muslim is in opposition to the principles of national cohesion, integration, and unity.
he urged the court to issue an order of perpetual injunction to prevent the Independent National Electoral Commission from disclosing the name of the APC and its presidential candidate for the 2023 election.
The plaintiff said in his affidavit: “I am a legal practitioner, an apostle of the rule of law, an adherent of constitutionalism, social justice crusader and defender of rights of all citizens, to live in unity and peace.
“The 1st defendant (APC) is a major political party and the ruling party at the national level and is expected at all times to adhere to the constitutional principles governing the country.
“The 2nd defendant (Tinubu) is the presidential candidate of the 1st defendant having been nominated by the political party
and 3rd defendant (INEC) is the statutory body vested with powers to conduct elections for the federation in this Nigeria.
“I know as a fact that upon the conclusion of the primaries of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant had been nominated as its Presidential Candidate for the Presidential election in 2023.
“I know as a fact that the 2nd defendant is a staunch adherent and practitioner of the Islamic religion.
“Upon its emergence as a Candidate of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant has now nominated Sen. Kashim Shettima as its running mate and Vice-Presidential Candidate for the said election.
“The said Kashim Shettima himself is also a staunch adherent of the Islamic faith.
“I know as a fact that the 1st and 2nd defendant have a duty in nominating a joint ticket for the Presidential and Vice-presidential candidate, they owe a constitutional duty, to uphold the principles of social justice, equity, national cohesion and unity of Nigeria.
“I know as a fact that the nomination of Muslims as presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates, in a country with diverse religious inclinations, runs counter to the spirit of national cohesion, integration, and unity.
“The 1st defendant is estopped by law to take actions capable of undermining social justice, equity and unity and as such not qualified to present a candidate of the same faith as the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the party.
“The defendants are under constitutional duty to ensure that the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof except in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
“The nomination of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidate of the 1st Defendant being persons of the same religious faith is exclusionary, divisive and capable of polarizing the country along religious lines and it runs counter to the sacrosanct principles of social justice.
“This suit is a public interest litigation aimed at protecting the sanctity of the constitution being the supreme law of the land (suprema lex), to protect the public interest of seeing that constitutional supremacy as is enforced, adhered to and rendered not impotent or made mockery of.
“This Honourable Court is empowered to ensure that constitutional provisions are upheld at all times and it would be just and equitable to grant this application in the interest of peace and national cohesion.
However, in his ruling, Justice Mohammed rejected the plaintiff’s argument that he had the legal authority to bring the case, and as a result, he dismissed the entire thing.
