If the suit by a human right activist and National Coordinator of the Forum for Justice and Human Rights Defence (FJHRD) is anything to go by, then there would be no governorship election in Delta State.
Ikimi has filled a motion ex-parte at the Federal High Court, Asaba, the state capital, praying the court to restrain the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) for conducting the April guber election in the state until January, 10, 2015.
The Warri-based lawyer is the plaintiff/applicant in the suit while INEC and Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan of Delta State are the first and second respondents respectively.
In the suit number, FHC/ASB/CS/49/2011, brought pursuant to Order 6, rule 17, Order 26, rule 8 (1), Order 28, rule 2 of the Federal High Court (civil procedure rules 2009), the plaintiff/applicant also prayed the court to grant him leave to issue and serve the originating summons in this suit for service on the 1st defendant/respondent.
He is also seeking: “An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st defendant/respondent by itself, its agents, servants, assigns and privies or howsoever from in anyway conducting any election for the Governorship of Delta State until the expiration of a period of 4 (four) years from the 10th day of January, 2011 when the 2nd defendant/respondent’s tenure of office will expire, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice”.
Ikimi pray the court for an “order granting accelerated hearing of this suit, including all pending applications’ and “for such further order or other orders as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”.
In a sixteen (16) paragraphed affidavit in support of the application, the plaintiff/applicant said: “On November 9th, 2010, the Court of Appeal (Benin Division) quashed the election of the 2nd defendant/respondent and ordered fresh election.”
“However, on the 6th day of January, 2011 the 1st defendant/respondent conducted fresh governorship election in Delta State, which the 2nd defendant/despondent won”.
“The 2nd defendant/respondent later took his oath of allegiance and oath of office on the 10th day of January, 2011.
The plaintiff/applicant said he has instituted the suit as a Deltan and as a tax payer for the court to determine whether in accordance with Section 180(2)(a) of the 1999 constitution, the 1st defendant/respondent can conduct another governorship election in the state in April, 2011 when the 2nd defendant/respondent took a fresh oath of allegiance and oath of office on the 10th day of January, 2011, having won the fresh gubernatorial election conducted by the 1st Defendant/Respondent in Delta State on the 6th day of January, 2011”.
He said the issues for determination are interalia:
*Whether this Honourable court can grant an interim injunction against the 1st defendant/respondent in this suit.
*Whether Court can grant the plaintiff/applicant leave to issue and serve the originating summons in this suit on the 1st defendant/respondent whose address for service is at Plot 436, Zambezi Crescent, Maitama, Abuja, a place outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
*Whether also court can grant the plaintiff/applicant an accelerated hearing in this suit including all pending applications.
On whether the court could grant an interim injunction in the suit against INEC, Ikimi said, “It is my humble submission that the plaintiff/applicant in his affidavit in support at paragraphs 9,10 and 11, have been able to show to court the urgency this application deserves to save the rest and the fact that as a Deltan and as a tax payer, he and many other Deltans who have given their mandate to the 2nd defendant/respondent during the 6th January, 2011 fresh governorship election in Delta State would suffer imminent irretrievable injury or damage, same being a waste of tax payers’ money, if the 1st defendant/respondent goes ahead to conduct another governorship election in the State in April, 2011, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent having taking fresh oath of allegiance and oath of office on the 10th day of January, 2011.
On whether court can grant leave to issue and serve the originating summons in this suit on INEC in Abuja, he contended, “I submit that by virtue of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 , this Honourable Court can grant the plaintiff/applicant leave to issue and serve the 1st defendant/respondent the originating summons in this suit, who address for service is at Plot 436, Zambezi Crescent, Maitama, Abuja, a place outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable court. See paragraph 13 of Plaintiff/Applicant’s affidavit. I beg to submit”.
While praying for accelerated hearing, Ikimi told the court that it would serve the interest of justice for it to grant the prayer.
In an 18-paragraph affidavit in support of his motion on notice, the plaintiff/applicant averred,
“The 2nd Defendant/Respondent is the incumbent Governor of Delta State of Nigeria with office at Government House, Asaba, Delta Stat and that on the 9th day of November, 2010 the Court of Appeal sitting in Benin City, quashed the election of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent who was elected Governor during the April 14th, 2007 nationwide Gubernatorial election and thereby ordered a fresh election into the said office of Governor of Delta State”.
“The 1st defendant/respondent later conducted a fresh election into the office of the Governor of Delta State on the 6th day of January, 2011”, adding, “at the end of the said fresh election conducted by the 1st defendant/respondent in Delta State, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent was returned elected and subsequently sworn in as Governor of Delta State on the 10th day of January, 2011”.
“The 1st Defendant/Respondent despite the above, has gone ahead to fix April, 2011 as Governorship elections nationwide including Delta State, in spite of the fact that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s aforesaid fresh oath of allegiance and oath of office took place on the 10th day of January, 2011. I have filed an originating summons in this suit for the proper interpretation by this Honourable Court of Section 180(2) (a) of the 1999 constitution as to whether the tenure of office of the 2nd Defendant as Governor of Delta State begins to run when he took fresh oath of allegiance and oath of office on the 10th day of January, 2011”.
“Unless this Honourable Court restrains the 1st Defendant/Respondent from conducting fresh Governorship election in Delta State in April, 2011 the subject matter of this suit would be destroyed.
“Still on the above, I state that majority of Deltans who had given their mandate to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent during the January 6th, 2011 fresh Governorship election in Delta State would suffer imminent irretrievable injury or damage should the 2nd Defendant/Respondent surrenders the above mandate and the 1st Defendant/Respondent goes ahead to conduct another Governorship election in the State in April, 2011.
“As a Deltan and a tax payer, I know that conducting a fresh Governorship election in Delta State in April, 2011 by the 1st Defendant/Respondent would amount to a waste of tax payers money and same a violation of Section 182(2) (a) of the 1999 constitution.
“The time the 2nd Defendant/Respondent took his oath of allegiance and oath of office on the 10th day of January, 2011 and April, 2011 when the 1st Defendant/Respondent intends to conduct another election into the office of the Governor of Delta State is very short and unless this Honourable Court quickly intervenes by restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent the subject matter would not only be destroyed but the majority of Deltans and my humble self who had given their mandate to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent as their Governor would have been dispossessed of same.
“I have the means to pay damages to the 1st Defendant/Respondent should this application turns out to be frivolous; I have filed an originating summons in this suit against the Defendants/Respondents; The balance of convenience is on the Plaintiff/Applicant’s side as a tax payer as more justice would be done if the 1st Defendant/Respondent is restrained from conducting a fresh Governorship election in April, 201”, he stated.
“The Defendants/Respondents would not be prejudice in the event that this Honourable Court grants the Plaintiff/Applicant his above injunctive prayer; It would also serve the interest of justice to grant the Plaintiff/Applicant all his relief in this application and I have deposed to this application in good faith in accordance with the relevant oath laws”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment