The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday adjourned until July 16 a suit seeking to nullify the emergence of former Governor of Cross River Governor, Donald Duke, as the presidential candidate of the Peoples Redemption Party, PRP, for the 2027 general elections.
Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date after the plaintiff’s lawyer, Felix Ipogah sought an adjournment to enable him to serve the first and second defendants with a counter affidavit to their joint preliminary objection.
An aspirant, Dr Yakubu Kingsley filed the suit challenging the emergence of Duke as presidential candidate of the PRP.
Others in the matter are the PRP and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
Kingsley’s lawyer, D.A. Sulyman, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for hearing.
He said that the plaintiff filed a counter affidavit to the preliminary objection of the PRP and Duke.
The lawyer, however, told the court that he had not been able to serve the process on the defendants and applied for an adjournment.
Nuel Akaputu, who appeared for the PRP and Duke and Azubuike Ugochukwu, who represented INEC, did not oppose the application and the judge adjourned the case until July 16 for hearing.
Kingsley, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1234/2026, sought three questions for determination in the originating summons filed on June 10.
The plaintiff wants the court to determine whether Duke was dully returned as the presidential candidate of PRP in the May 25 primary election.
He claimed that over voting took place in Bauchi and Gombe States and Kwara.
He, therefore, sought a declaration that the ex-governor, not being a registered member of PRP, cannot participate in the party’s primary election held on May 25 where he was declared the winner on May 26.
Kingsley, therefore, prayed the court for an order setting aside the results of the presidential election conducted in Bauchi, Gombe and Kwara respectively on the ground of over voting.
He sought an order declaring him as the presidential candidate of PRP for 2027 general elections, having complied with all the party’s guidelines and been a registered member of the party.
He also sought an order directing the commission not to recognize Duke as PRP’s presidential flagbearer or to delete his name from its database as the presidential candidate of the party.
The plaintiff further sought an order directing the electoral umpire to recognize him as PRP’s presidential candidate.
In the affidavit in support of the suit deposed to by Kingsley himself, he said he is a registered member of PRP with membership card number: 2A8D8B20B2.
Also Read: Court sets July 7 for hearing on Duke’s PRP candidacy
He averred on oath that Duke was not a dully member of PRP as of May 4 when the membership register of the party was submitted to INEC.
He said he validly purchased the party’s Expression of Interest Form and Nomination Form for the office of president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and paid a total sum of N20 million to the party.
But Duke and PRP, in the preliminary objection jointly filed June 23 by their lawyer, Noah Abdul, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.
Giving seven grounds why their application should be granted, Abdul argued that Kingsley’s suit “as constituted is purportedly a pre-election matter within the meaning of Section 285,14, a, of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended.”
The lawyer submitted that by Section 285,9, of the constitution, every pre-election matter ought to have been filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of.
According to him, the cause of action in the suit arose on May 26, being the day the result of presidential primary election of when Duke was declared winner of the primary election.
He, however, said that the instant suit was filed on June 11, 17 days after the accrual of the cause of action.
“The instant suit was filed outside the mandatory 14-days period stipulated by Section 285,9, of the constitution, and therefore statute-barred.
“The 14-days period under Section 285, 9, is jurisdictional and cannot be extended or enlarged by the court or waived by parties,” he said.
Abdul argued that issues relating to membership of a political party, as is the instant case, is a matter strictly within the domestic affairs of a political party.
He said the court has no jurisdiction to determine who the members of a political party are.
“It is not a justiciable question,” he said.
They prayed the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
NAN
