President Muhammadu Buhari has been dragged to the Supreme Court for alleged perjury over the knowledge he provided to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, in the simply concluded February 23, presidential election.
The appellants who’re Kalu Kalu, Labaran Ismail and Hassy El-Kuris are challenging the qualification of Buhari for the election and searching for the apex court to retroactively nullify his candidacy.
The most recent transfer was premised on the dismissal of their suit at the Courtroom of Appeal, sitting in Abuja on grounds that it was statute barred and as such can’t be heard.
The appellants particularly desires Buhari’s nomination and subsequent victory on the February 23 presidential election nullified on the grounds that President Buhari lied on oath in his form 001 he submitted to INEC for the aim of clearance for the presidential election.
The appellants, Kalu Kalu, Labaran Ismail and Hassy El-Kuris within the Notice of Appeal marked: CA/A/436/2019, are asking the apex court for an Order to put aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and hear the matter on benefit and grant the reliefs sought within the Originating Summons.
The Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, had on July 12, held that the singular proven fact that the suit was filed outside the 14 days offered by the legislation robbed the court docket of jurisdiction to entertain the go well with.
The go well with was accordingly dismissed for being incompetent and missing in advantage.
Within the Discover of Attraction dated and filed July 24, the appellants by means of their counsel, Ukpai Ukairo, offered 12 grounds for the setting apart of the judgment of the Court docket of Attraction, Abuja, amongst that are; that the “Discovered Justices of the Court of Attraction erred in legislation in counting on a Preliminary Objection withdrawn and struck out by the Court of Appeal in striking out and dismissing the appeal.
He added, “The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in legislation and breached the right of the Appellants to honest listening to by counting on a Preliminary Objection, withdrawn by the 2nd Respondent and struck out by the Court, thus being a case not made out or relied upon or deserted by a celebration in getting into a choice in a judgment.
“The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in legislation in holding that “the failure of the Registrar to sign the Originating Summons is deadly and goes to the problem of jurisdiction” and thereby struck out the Originating Summons.
“The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in legislation in holding that the reason for action for the aim of calculating the 14 days offered for in Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, (4th Alteration) Act, 2017 within which to file an action beneath Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act arose on the day the first Respondent submitted his Form CF 001 to the third Respondent.
“The Discovered Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the Appellants didn’t put a date as to when the reason for action arose.
“The Learned Justices of the Court of appeal erred in legislation by denying the fitting of the Appellants to honest listening to by failing to resolve on subject one argued by the Appellants which challenged the competence of the processes filed by the first Respondent.
“The Learned Justice of the Court of Appeal erred in legislation in relying for the aim of figuring out the attraction, on the processes filed by the legislation officers in the Ministry of Justice.
“The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in legislation in holding that delving into the opposite points raised within the attraction will likely be regarded as an academic train as the case has been held to have been statute barred by virtue of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 4th alteration and robs this court of its jurisdiction”.
According to Ukairo, the appellants within the transient of argument distilled two points for determination, (i) Whether the Learned Trial Decide was proper in counting on the processes filed by the 1st defendant by means of a Legislation Officer in the Ministry of Justice?
(ii) Whether or not the Learned Trial Judge was proper in holding that the suit was statute-barred by computing the variety of days from the 28th day of September, 2018 when the 2nd Respondent held its primary election wherein the first Respondent was elected as a candidate of the 2nd Respondent?
“The difficulty one was distilled from floor one of many notice and Ground of appeal which stated ground of appeal was a problem to the refusal of the trial court docket to uphold the problem by the appellants of the competence of the method filed on behalf of the first respondent by a legislation officer from the Ministry of Justice.
“One of many processes that was the topic of the problem to competence is the additional affidavit of the first respondent filed on the April 15, 2019 to which is hooked up a written address that are the one processes whereby the issue of 14 days in Part 285(9) 0f the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (4th Amendment) Act, 2017 was raised.
“The Court counting on the paperwork assailed by objection to competence arrived at a call after which held the problem to the competence academic”, he mentioned.
The appellants had approached the appellate court to nullify and put aside the Judgment of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court which declined to listen to their go well with instituted to problem the academic qualification of President Buhari earlier than the conduct of the 2019 general election.
However the appellate court in a judgement delivered held that the suit has been minimize up by the Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution which stipulate a 14 days time period inside which an election matter have to be filed.
Although the appellate court agreed with the trial court docket that the go well with was statute barred having filed out of time, it nonetheless, disagreed with the trial court on the date the reason for motion passed off.
Justice Ahmed Mohammed had in his judgment held that the reason for motion passed off on September 28, 2018 when the APC held its primary election to pick candidate of the celebration in the 2019 general election.
However the appellate court docket held that the reason for motion passed off on October 18, 2018, the date Buhari submitted his form 001 to INEC for the aim of clearance for the presidential election.
The appellants had filed the suit on November 5, 2018, claiming October 25, the date INEC revealed the listing of profitable candidates within the 2019 basic election because the date the reason for action arose, making the go well with to be competent.
The three man panel of the justices of the Court docket of Attraction had additionally dismissed the go well with based mostly on the preliminary objection filed by the APC’s lawyer challenging the jurisdiction of the suit on the grounds that it’s incompetent.
The judge held that the failure of the Registrar of the Federal High Court to transmit the file of proceedings was deadly to the originating summon and makes the suit incompetent.
The choice prompted the appellants to strategy the apex court in their further quest for justice.
Among the reliefs sought are a declaration that Buhari submitted false info regarding his qualification and certifcate to INEC for the aim of contesting election into the workplace of the President of Nigeria and that he needs to be disqualified.
Additionally they prayed for an order of court directing INEC to take away Buhari’s identify as a candidate of APC and another order restraining Buhari from parading himself as a candidate in the 2019 presidential election and in addition APC from recognizing Buhari as a candidate.