Wada drags INEC, AGF, APC to court

Governor Idris Wada of Kogi State and his party – the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – have asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to declare Wada winner of the inconclusive governorship election held in the state last Saturday.

They made the request in a suit they filed before the court on Thursday, which has INEC, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.

It is Wada’s contention that in view of the death of the candidate of the APC, Abubkar Audu, it was incumbent on INEC to declare him winner of the election, which INEC declared inconclusive.

He hinged his argument on the ground that he was the only surviving candidate with the majority of lawful votes cast in the election held on 21st November 2015.

He also asked the court to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission to issue him with a Certificate of Return.

Wada and the PDP also filed another application praying the court to restrain INEC from conducting the December 5th supplementary election.

The governor is seeking an order of injunction restraining APC from organising or holding a fresh primary election for the purpose of any ‎supplementary or other election for the Kogi State governorship election 2015.

He also asked the court‎ to declare that APC cannot organise or hold a fresh primary election for the purpose of the supplementary election, having regard to the immutable statutory timeliness provided by enabling sections of the Electoral Act 2010 and the INEC timetable for Kogi Governorship election.

The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the AGF was not competent to issue directives to INEC to allow APC to substitute its candidate for the Kogi governorship election after the commencement of the election, and that such directive is null and void for its inconsistency with the provisions of the constitution.

They urged the court to hold that APC could not lawfully nominate a candidate for the supplementary governorship election slated for December 5, 2015, without a valid and legally cognizable primary election of the APC conducted within the mandatory timeliness specified by the Electoral Act.

Wada and PDP further asked the court to declare that, “having regards to the provisions of Section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, votes scored by a candidate who died during an election cannot be inherited by or transferred to a person who was not a candidate at the said election and who did not participate in all stages of such election, for the purpose of concluding such election.

The plaintiffs, in a 36-‎paragraph supporting affidavit deposed to by the PDP State Collation Agent for the election, Joe Agada, it was stated that with the demise of APC’s candidate, the two leading candidates became Wada with 199,514 votes and that of the Labour Party with 8, 756 votes.

“That I know as a fact that INEC on this basis ought to declare ‎Wada the winner of the governorship election of 21st November 2015, being the only surviving candidate with the highest number of votes and scoring 25 per cent of the votes in all the Local Government Areas of the State.”

The case has not been assigned to any judge for hearing.

The suit by Wada and his party is coming shortly after the late Audu’s running mate, ‎James Faleke, wrote to INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, seeking to be declared the winner of the election.

In a letter written by his lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Faleke said that the only option opened to INEC is to declare him the governor-elect.

Olanipekun wrote, “What INEC should do is to obey, respect and comply with the letters, spirit, intendment and tenor of the constitution by not only declaring APC as the winner of the election, but by also declaring our client as the governor-elect.”

He said that INEC’s directive to APC to conduct a new primary to select a candidate to replace Audu was “unfounded, both legally and constitutionally. It can also not be reasonably or rationally defended.”

He drew the attention of the INEC chairman to the provision of section 68(1) and (c) of the Electoral Act to the effect that any result declared by Returning Officer shall be final and binding, and can only be reviewed or upturned by an election tribunal.