A Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit by Senator
Ned Munir Nwoko, seeking, among others, to void the emergence of ex-governor
Ifeanyi Okowa as the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the
next election in Delta North Senatorial district of Delta State. Politics
Nwoko had commenced the suit, marked: FCT/ABJ/CS/1062/2026, in
his name, but through a person described in the originating processes as his
lawful attorney, Dr Mike Nwoko.
At a point, he applied to amend the originating processes
to reflect the pre-election suit as
being personally commenced by himself rather than through his purported
attorney, a move the defendants objected to.
Listed as defendants in the suit are: the APC, Okowa and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Ruling on Monday, Justice Mohammed Umar upheld the arguments
by lawyers to the defendants, including Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, (for the
APC), that the suit was fundamentally
defective and incompetent from its inception and therefore could not be amended
as sought by Nwoko. Politics
Justice Umar, who, upon examining the originating summons,
found that the suit was indeed,
commenced by Senator Nwoko through his purported lawful attorney, Dr Mike
Nwoko, held that the form and content of
the originating process showed that the suit was instituted in a representative
capacity.
Relying on the provisions of Section 285 (14) of the
Constitution and Section 88 (2) of the
Electoral Act 2026, which prescribe the category of persons entitled to
commence a pre-election suit, Justice Umar held that “the provisions were
clear, explicit and unambiguous in vesting the right to institute a
pre-election action in an aspirant, who participated in the relevant party
primary.”
The judge further held that the right created by the
Constitution and the Electoral Act is a personal statutory right, which belongs
exclusively to the affected aspirant and not an ordinary civil right that may
be freely assigned, transferred or exercised through an agent or attorney.
Justice Umar further agreed with the defendants that the right
to challenge the outcome, conduct or validity of a political party’s primary
election is personal to the aspirant who participated in that primary and
claims to have been aggrieved by the process.
He held that such an aspirant must personally invoke the
jurisdiction of the court in the manner prescribed by law and cannot transfer
the right of action to another person through a power of attorney.
Justice Umar equally held that if the Constitution or the
Electoral Act had intended to permit an aspirant to institute a pre-election
action through an attorney or in a representative capacity, the relevant
legislation would have expressly said so.
The judge noted that neither Section 285 (14) of the
Constitution nor Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act contained any provision
extending the right to commence a pre-election suit to an attorney, agent or
representative of an aspirant.
He proceeded to reject Nwoko’s application for amendment and
held that an amendment could not be used to revive a suit which was incurably
defective from the moment it was filed, stressing that in substance, no
amendment could breathe life into an originating process that was already a
nullity.
The judge was of the view that there must first be a competent
and subsisting proceeding before the court can exercise its discretionary power
to permit an amendment, adding that the originating process itself is void and
incapable of conferring jurisdiction; an amendment cannot operate
retrospectively to create a valid suit.
Justice Umar dismissed Nwoko’s application for leave to amend
the originating summons and proceeded to strike out the substantive suit for
want of jurisdiction upon finding that the originating summons was incompetent.
0 Comments