Court asked to set aside nomination of Soludo as Anambra APGA candidate 

By GODWIN TSA, Abuja

The controversy trailing the nomination of a former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Prof Charles Soludo, as the flag bearer of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), for the November 6 governorship election in Anambra State, has resulted into a lawsuit filed before the Abuja division of the Federal High Court.

In the originating summons, a chieftain of the party, Okoye Nwabuogo, is seeking an order of court setting aside the election and nomination of Soludo as the party’s candidate for the November election.

The suit dated July 6, 2021, and filed the same day by counsel to the plaintiff, Okoro Nkemakolam, is further seeking an order restraining Soludu from parading himself as the validly or duly elected candidate of the party for the said election.

It is the case of the plaintiff, who is a card-carrying member of the party and a registered voter, that the statutory 21 days notice was not given to INEC by the party, prior to the holding of the special ward congress, held on June 15, 2021, for the election of ad hoc delegates for the nomination of the party’s governorship candidate for the Anambra State gubernatorial election scheduled to hold on November 6. 2021.

Listed as defendants in the pre-election suit are All Progressive Grand Alliance, Prof Charles Soludo and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

While urging the court to invalidate and set aside the entire primary election of the party held on June 23, the plaintiff is equally seeking an order of injunction restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC, listed as 3rd defendant), from accepting the name of or recognising Prof Soludo (the 2nd Defendant), as the candidate of APGA (the 1st defendant), for the Anambra State gubernatorial general election scheduled to hold on November 6, 2021.

She is also seeking an order of the court restraining the party from holding out or in any manner howsoever and/or according to Soludo the rights or privileges as its validly or duly elected candidate for the November 6, 2021 governorship election in the state.

In addition, she is further seeking a declaration that the party, is mandatorily required, given the provision of Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) to give to the 3rd defendant (INEC), the compulsory 21days statutory notice prior to the holding of the special ward congress, held on June 15, 2021, for the election of ad hoc delegates for the nomination of its governorship candidate for the Anambra State gubernatorial election scheduled to hold on November 6.

A declaration that the election of 812 delegates as against the 978 delegates, as provided for in Article 11(5)(vii) of the APGA Constitution 2019, to be ad hoc delegates, to elect the governorship candidate of the party, is illegal, unlawful, invalid, null and void.

She formulated the following questions for determination by the court:

‘Whether given the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the 3rd Defendant can, in the light of its two separate letters dated 18th June 2021 with REF: INEC/DEPM/UPMM/1/145 and REF: INEC/DEPM/CWO/040/11/304 which disclosed that APGA (1st Defendant), failed to give it, the mandatory 21days statutory notice, prior to the holding of the special ward congress, on 15th day of June 2021, for the election of ad hoc delegates for the nomination of the 1st Defendant’s governorship candidate for the Anambra State gubernatorial election scheduled to hold on November 6. 2021, lawfully recognise, deal with and give effect to the nomination of the 2nd Defendant through the primary election of the 1st defendant held on 23rd June 2021 as the 1st Defendant’s candidate for the said governorship election.

Whether given the clear provisions of Article 11(5)(vii) of the APGA Constitution 2019, which provides for the election of three delegates per ward, to be ad hoc delegates, to elect the governorship candidate of the party, the party can lawfully proceed to elect only two delegates in violation of it constitution.

Whether the primary election of the 1st Defendant held on 23rd June 2021 for the purpose of electing the 1st Defendant’s candidate for Anambra State gubernatorial general election scheduled to hold on November 6. 2021 is not invalidated by reason of the 1st Defendant’s non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010(as amended), and Article (5)(vii) of the APGA Constitution, 2019.’

In a 31-paragraphs affidavit in support of the originating summons, the plaintiff averred:

‘That in the said letters the 3rd Defendant expressly stated that the 1st defendant failed to give the mandatory/compulsory 21days statutory notice prior to the holding of the special ward congress held on 15th day of June 2021, for the election of ad hoc delegates for the nomination of the 1st Defendant’s governorship candidate for the Anambra State gubernatorial election scheduled to hold on November 6. 2021 and as such the 3rd Defendant did not monitor the said ward congresses and cannot attest if the purported ad hoc Delegates are products of a democratic process.

‘That she knows as a matter of fact that notwithstanding the failure to communicate to the 3rd Defendant within the mandatory 21 days, the date for the conduct of the special ward congress, the 1st Defendant held its primary election on 23rd June 2021 utilising an ad hoc Delegate list of the purported special Ward Congress wherein the 2nd Defendant purportedly emerged as the flagbearer and forwarded the name of the 2nd Defendant who was enthroned in the said congresses to the 3rd Defendant.

‘That the 3rd Defendant as an umpire rather than intervene to stop the 1st Defendant from further perpetuating illegality in the light of the two separate letters dated 18th June 2021 with REF: INEC/DEPM/UPMM/1/145 and REF: INEC/DEPM/CWO/040/11/304, proceeded to issue a certificate of return to the 2nd Defendant, thereby lawfully accepting, dealing with and recognising the 2nd defendant as the validly nominated candidate of the 1st defendant for the Anambra State gubernatorial general election scheduled to hold on November 6. 2021.

‘That she knows as a matter of fact that the primary election of the 1st Defendant, was not conducted in accordance with the law, and will likely prejudice the chances of her party winning the gubernatorial election, except this Honourable Court intervenes as a matter of urgency.

‘The plaintiff stated that the 1st Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of its constitution in the conduct of the special congress held on the 15th day of June 2021 to elect ad hoc delegates for the purposes of electing the candidate/flagbearer of the 1st defendant in the Anambra State gubernatorial general election scheduled to hold on November 6, 2021.

‘That there are 326 wards in Anambra State and that as a matter of fact, there ought to be three delegates from each ward, bringing the total number of delegates 978, which is not inclusive of statutory delegates.

‘That she knows as a matter of fact that the list submitted by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant has only 812 names as against the 978 delegates.

‘That she knows as a matter of fact, that by the constitution of the APGA, three persons were to be elected in the said special congress and not two persons as was done by the 1st Defendant in the said special congress, held on the 15th day of June 2021.

‘That the 3rd Defendant will continue to recognise, deal with and give effect to the nomination of the 2nd Defendant through the primary election of the 1st defendant held on 23rd June 2021 as the 1st Defendant’s candidate for the said governorship election unless restrained by the Court.

‘That the 2nd Defendant will continue to hold himself with rights or privileges as the validly or duly elected candidate of the 1st defendant for the Anambra State gubernatorial general election scheduled to hold on November 6, 2021, having been recognised by the 3rd Defendant unless restrained by the court.

‘That her interest as a member of the 1st Defendant will be highly prejudiced except by the urgent intervention of this Honourable Court.

‘That she had invested her resources and goodwill in the 1st Defendant, and knows as a matter of fact, that except by the urgent intervention of this Honourable Court, the goodwill of the party will be totally destroyed and her goodwill and resources lost.’

Meanwhile, the suit is yet to be assigned to a judge for adjudication. (Daily Sun)