A Federal High Court Abuja, on Thursday, invalidated the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary election that produced Asue Ighodalo as party’s candidate in the forthcoming governorship election in Edo.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a judgment, held that the PDP’s primary held on Feb. 22 failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022; the guidelines for the conduct of the poll amd the party’s constitution.

Justice Ekwo, who said that the Exhibit PDP 1 tendered by the party was bereft of evidence, held that the plaintiffs, through the exhibits tendered, were able to establish their case against the defendants.

Edo PDP: Court dismisses Phillip Shaibu’s suit seeking to nullify Ighodalo’s candidacy

The judge said that from the exhibit presented by the PDP, he found that the returning officers who prepared the result sheets only sat down in a place to manufacture the outcome.of the poll.

He said the exclusion of the 381 delegates, including the plaintiffs, were against the provisions of the law.

Justice Ekwo held that, though INEC, the 1st defendant, filed a memorandum of appearance in the suit, it was unfortunate that the commission did not file any process in the case.

According to the judge, the 1st defendant counsel only said it will be bound by the decision of the court.

“I found that the case of the plaintiffs succeed on merit,” he said.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that three aggrieved ad-hoc delegates, on behalf of the 378 others, had sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the PDP, its national secretary and the vice chairman, south south as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/165/2024 dated Feb. 7 but filed Feb 8, the plaintiffs sought for two orders

These include an order for the defendants or their agents not to act but to show cause why the reliefs of the plaintiffs in their originating summons should not be granted with regard to the plan of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants to exclude them and 378 other delegates, whose names and election results are contained in “Exhibits BID 8A to 8L,” from participating in the primaries.of Feb. 22 in Edo.

The plaintiffs, which include Hon Kelvin Mohammed, Mr Gabriel Okoduwa and Mr Ederaho Osagie, on behalf of others in 12 local government areas and 127 wards, averred that it would be in the interest of justice for their reliefs to be granted.

NAN reports that the 381 delegates are those loyal to Philip Shaibu, the impeached deputy governor.

The judge held that by virtue of the Ad Hoc delegates congress conducted on Feb. 4 and the exclusion of the three plaintiffs and 378 other lawful delegates, making 381 delegates, in the Feb. 22 primary poll, the election was a nullity.

Citing judicial authorities, Justice Ekwo said “it is mandatory for a political party such as the 2nd defendant (PDP) to comply with its constitution.”

Also making allusion to a previous case in Christian vs. Innocent (2023), he said a party must therefore respect and honour its guidelines or constitution.

“Parties are bound by the constitution of Nigeria, the Electoral Act and their own constitution and guidelines.

“Where they act contrary to the provisions of the law and the guidelines which they have enacted for themselves, such actions will be declared invalid,” he quoted.

Justice Ekwo, who said that the Exhibit PDP 1 tendered by the party was bereft of evidence, held that the plaintiffs, through the exhibits tendered, were able to establish their case against the defendants.

“I do not see how Exhibit PDP1 has complied with the provision of Article 5O (3) of the 2nd defendant’s constitution which makes mandatory provision that the Congress for 3 delegates shall be by direct primaries in which all card-carrying members of the party at the ward level shall participate.

“Unlike Exhibits BID 8A to 8L, Exhibit PDP1 does not demonstrate that the said results emanated from direct primaries in which all card-carrying members of the party at the ward level shail participate.

“There is therefore, no evidence that Exhibit PDP1 complied with the provision of the 2nd defendant’s constitution.

“It has always been the law that where a statute or statutory instrument provides for a mode or method of doing a thing, non-compliance with such a prescribed mode or method goes to the root of the matter and it affects the foundation.

“The lapse is beyond mere irregularity, and it is ultra vires.

“In other words, it is null and void and of no effect,” he said.

The judge said that from the exhibit presented by the PDP, he found that the returning officers who prepared the result sheets only sat down in a place to manufacture the outcome.of the poll.

He said Adeyemi Ajibade, SAN, the National Legal Adviser of the party, who gave information to the deponent in their counter affidavit, was not an eye witness of the ward congress purportedly conducted by the PDP.

He also said the deponent, Nanchang Ndam, a litigation secretary in the PDP Directorate, was also not an eye witness.

“Not being persons on ground at the time that the said congress was held, A. K. Ajibade, SAN who gave information to the deponent failed to state his source of information.

“Be that as it may, I have noted upon studying Exhibit PDP1 of the 2nd defendant, that the said Result Sheets do not qualify as Ward Congress Result Sheets going by the provision of Article 1 (b) (i) of the Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections of 22nd February, 2024 of the 2nd defendant which makes it for each Ward Chapter of the Party to elect three (3) Ward Ad-Hoc Delegates at a Special Ward Congress.

“Where election of delegates in a Ward Congress is in issue, the only credible evidence is the Result Sheet of the Congress of each Ward Chapter of the party where such congress was held and not ‘Summary of Result Sheets for Elected 3 Ad Hoc Ward Delegates’ by Local Government Areas which the 2nd defendant has tendered in this case.

“I find that the said ‘Summary of Result Sheets for Elected 3 Ad Hoc Ward Delegates’ (Exh. PDP1) are hurriedly manufactured documents leaving quite a brazen trial of their illegalities.

“What happened here is that two people sat down and wrote and signed some of the Result Sheets and in the process failed to signed some together and outrightly failed to sign other sheets.

“As for the unsigned documents, the law is clear that unsigned documents command no judicial validity and have no evidential or probative value,” the judge said.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that three aggrieved ad-hoc delegates, for themselves and on behalf of the 378 others, had sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the PDP, its national secretary and the vice chairman, south south as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.

In the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/165/2024 dated Feb. 7 but filed Feb 8, the plaintiffs put four questions for determination and sought for two orders.

The number four question read: “Whether by virtue of the provisions of Article 50(3) of the constitution of the 2nd defendant, an exclusion of the plaintiffs and other lawfully elected delegates whose names and election results appear on Exhibits BID 8A to 8L, from participating in the scheduled governorship primary election of the 22nd of February, 2024 by the defendants, such primary election can be said to be lawful, valid, legitimate or constitutional?”

Delivering the judgment, Justice Ekwo answered the number four question posed by the plaintiffs in affirmative.

“Consequently, I find that the case of the plaintiffs succeeds on the merit upon preponderance of evidence as required by law.

“Before I answer the questions formulated by the P
plaintiffs, there is need to say that question 1 did not adduce evidence on it.

“I answer the other questions as follows:

“Question 2 in the affirmative; question 3 in the negative, and question 4 in the affirmative.

“I enter judgement on the terms as follows:

“A declaration is hereby made that by virtue of the provisions of Article 50 (3) of the Constitution of the 2nd defendant (as amended in 2017), the plaintiffs together with the other lawfully elected delegates, whose names and election results appear on Exhibits BID 8A to 8L herein, are the lawfully elected Ward Congress Delegates in their respective wards and by virtue of which the defendants cannot exclude them from participating as 3 Ad-Hoc Ward Delegates at the governorship primary election of Edo State slated for the 22 of February, 2024 or any other date.

“An order is hereby made directing the defendants who are bound by the provisions of Section 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022 and Article 50 (3) of the 2nd defendant’s constitution (as amended in 2017) to abide by the outcome of the 3 Ad-Hoc Delegates Ward Congress of February 4, 2024, at which the plaintiffs and the other 378 delegates, whose names and election results appear on Exhibits BID 8A to 8L were elected and to allow the plaintiffs and the 375 other lawfully elected delegates participate in the primary election of February 22, 2024.

“An order of Mandatory Injunction is hereby made restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd defendants from unlawfully excluding the plaintiffs and the other lawfully elected delegates whose names and election results appear on Exhibits BID 8A to 8L herein, from participating as 3 Ad-Hoc Ward Delegates in the governorship election primaries of the 2nd defendant slated for the 22nd of February, 2024 or any other date.

“This is the order of this court,” the judge said.

Earlier, Justice Ekwo also held that, though INEC, the 1st defendant, filed a memorandum of appearance in the suit, it was unfortunate that the commission did not file any process in the case.

According to the judge, the 1st defendant counsel only said the commission will be bound by the decision of the court.

“There is need to say that it is not helpful to the cause of justice for the 1st defendant (INEC) who by virtue of its statutory and constitutional functions and power to observe and monitor conventions, congresses and meetings of political parties and to keep records of the activities of all registered political parties, does file process nor actively take part in proceedings in order to assist the court.

“Where the law gives power, duty or function to a person, the expectation of the law is that such a person shall exercise such power and perform such duty or function creditably and lawfully, and shall take responsibility where such is required.

“Let me stop here. I know that the 1st defendant has heard me well,” the judge said.

NAN reports that the 381 delegates are those loyal to Philip Shaibu, the impeached deputy governor.