Labour Party Presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has asked an Abuja Federal High Court to dismiss the suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking his disqualification from the 2023 general election.
Insight Media had reported last week that the main opposition party had sued Labour Party and the All Progressives Congress (APC) for replacing the running mates of their presidential candidates.
The back story: In order to beat the June 17 deadline of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), APC flag-bearer, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, submitted the name of Kabiru Masari, as his vice presidential candidate, while Obi nominated his campaign Director-General, Doyin Okupe, as his running mate.
But the PDP is seeking a court order to bar INEC from replacing Tinubu and Obi’s running mates.
In the originating summons with suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1016/2022, INEC, APC, Tinubu, Masari, Labour Party, Obi and Okupe are the seven respondents in the case.
Obi pleads his case: While responding to the originating motion, the lawyer representing Obi and Okupe, Mr. Alex Ejesieme (SAN), asked the court to dismiss the prayers of the PDP on four grounds, The Punch reports.
Ejesieme argued that the PDP’s suit is speculative, conjectural in nature and lacks any hard facts.
“The plaintiff has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action to activate the jurisdiction of this court. The subject matter of the plaintiff’s suit is not situated within the jurisdictional confines of the Federal High Court. The plaintiff’s suit is a gross abuse of court process,” he argued.
The PDP had predicated its case on the argument that the term ‘placeholder’ is alien to the Electoral Act and that Okupe had admitted in public to be a mere placeholder.
Responding on behalf of Obi and Okupe, their lawyer argued, “Assuming it is established that the 3rd (Tinubu) and 6th (Obi) defendants did indeed make media publications indicating the alleged placeholder status of the 4th (Kabiru Madari) and 7th (Okupe) defendants, does that in its own right constitute a wrongdoing sufficient to activate the cause of action on the plaintiff?
“Is the conduct of the elections for which the defendants are to contest in, bound by the statements made in the media? Obviously not, my lord.”
