A Federal High Court in Abuja refused on Tuesday to hear an ex‑parte motion filed by Senator Aisha Ahmed, the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate in the Adamawa governorship election, who is popularly known as Binani. Justice Inyang Ekwo ordered the APC candidate’s counsel, Mohammed Sheriff, to first address the issue of jurisdiction before the substantive motion could be considered.
During the resumed hearing, lawyer Afeez Matomi appeared on behalf of Governor Ahmadu Fintiri, the third respondent in the suit, after Sheriff mentioned his name. Justice Ekwo asked Matomi whether he had been served with process. Matomi replied that they had not yet been served but had filed a motion to counter part of Binani’s prayers, having learned of the ex‑parte motion through social media. The judge declined to listen to Fintiri’s lawyer and emphasized that counsel must adhere to the law. He then instructed Sheriff to proceed with his address.
Sheriff stated that his ex‑parte motion was filed on 17 April and that he was ready to move it. Justice Ekwo, however, reiterated that Sheriff must first address the court on the question of jurisdiction. “I am ready too, but you have to address me on jurisdiction,” the judge said. He ordered that the application, together with the jurisdictional issue, be heard on the next adjourned date and set the matter down for 26 April.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria, Binani and the APC filed the ex‑parte motion (FHC/ABJ/CS/510/2023) against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and its candidate, Governor Fintiri, as first, second and third respondents respectively. Through her lawyer, Hussaini Zakariyau, SAN, Binani sought a judicial review of INEC’s administrative decision dated 16 April, which pertained to her declaration as the winner of the governorship election held on 18 March and the supplementary poll on 15 April. She also requested a prohibitory and certiorari order to prevent INEC and its agents from taking any further steps toward declaring the election winner pending determination of her judicial review application.
The application was brought under Order 34 Rules 1a, Order 3(1) & 3(2) a‑c, Order 6 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules), 2019, Section 251(1)(q) & (r) of the 1999 Constitution, and Sections 149 & 152 of the Electoral Act, 2022. Binani argued that after the collation of results, INEC declared her the winner, but the PDP and Governor Fintiri allegedly caused a public disturbance that led to the beating and manhandling of an INEC staff member. She claimed this crisis prompted INEC to cancel its initial declaration—a power she said only the election petition tribunal possessed. By cancelling the declaration, Binani contended that INEC usurped the tribunal’s authority. She maintained that judicial review allows a superior court to examine the actions and decisions of inferior courts, as well as those of legislative and administrative bodies, including agencies and public officers. Consequently, she argued that only a court, not INEC itself, could nullify the actions of an INEC official.
Comments are closed for this story.