|
Listen to article
|
Justice Muhammad Nasir-Yunusa of the Kano Division of the Federal High Court has denied viral media reports that he nullified the nomination of Dr. Alex Otti and other candidates of the Labour Party, who participated in the 2023 general elections in Abia State.
The Eastern Updates had earlier gathered that the court Presided over by Justice Yunusa, had nullified the Candidacy of the Abia State Governor-elect, Otti, and other LP Candidates, who participated in the 2023 elections in Abia and Kano States.
Making clarification on the ruling on Friday, Justice Yunusa said Otti and other candidates in Abia were not parties before his court.
Read Also: Alex Otti’s Camp Dismisses Kano ‘Kangaroo’ Court Ruling
The judge, however, declared that the judgement he delivered on Thursday, May 28, 2023, nullified the election of Labour Party candidates for Kano that contested during the 2023 general election.
A plaintiff, Ibrahim Haruna Ibrahim, had filed a case with suit No FHC/KN/CS/107/2023, against the Labour Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), seeking a declaration that the party violated some provisions of the Electoral Act and, therefore, its candidates disqualified and cannot be declared winner of an election.
‘The party that has not complied with the provisions of the electoral act cannot be said to have a candidate in an election and cannot be declared winner of an election; this being so, the votes credited to the 1st defendant is a wasted vote’, Justice Yunusa ruled.
He said: ‘The court declared the primary election of LP in Kano as null and void.’
Meanwhile, the Special Adviser to Otti on Media and Publicity, Ferdinand Ekeoma has written off the ruling of the Kano court.
While addressing the press at Alex Otti’s campaign office, Ekeoma described the ruling as baseless, kangaroo, unfounded, and misleading.
He explained that the Kano court specifically stated in Clause 9 of the judgement that ‘the candidates that participated in the election in Abia State are not parties to the suit before the court, and as such, the court lacks the jurisdiction to make an order for the issuance of Certificate of Return to them.’
