Court denies Binani’s plea regarding jurisdiction

On Tuesday, a Federal High Court in Abuja declined to hear an ex-parte plea brought by Senator Aisha Ahmed, also known as Binani, an APC candidate for governor of Adamawa.

Instead, Judge Inyang Ekwo instructed Mohammed Sheriff, the APC candidate’s attorney, to address the court on the subject of jurisdiction before the substantive case was heard.

Shortly after the sheriff addressed Governor Ahmadu Fintiri, the third respondent in the case, during the resumed hearing, Afeez Matomi made an appearance announcement for him.

Afterwards, Judge Ekwo questioned Matomi regarding service of process.

Even though they hadn’t been served yet, the attorney informed the judge that they had submitted a request to contest certain of Binani’s prayers.

He claimed that they decided to file a motion after learning about the ex-parte motion through social media.

The judge, who turned down Fintiri’s request for a hearing, stated that lawyers must strictly abide by the law.

Then Ekwo gave Sheriff the go-ahead to address the court.

The attorney declared that his ex-parte motion had been filed on April 17 and was prepared to be presented.

The judge stated that even though he was prepared to hear from Sheriff, the attorney first had to address the court regarding the jurisdictional issue.

“I am ready too but you have to address me on jurisdiction,” he said.

The application and the jurisdictional question would be heard simultaneously at the following postponed date, according to Justice Ekwo, who instructed Sheriff to address him regarding whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

As a result, he postponed the case until April 26 so that the motion could be heard and the issue of jurisdiction could be discussed.

According to the News Agency of Nigeria, Binani and the APC sued the Independent National Electoral Commission, the Peoples Democratic Party, and its candidate, Governor Fintiri, as the first, second, and third respondents, respectively, in the move ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/510/2023.

Binani had requested a judicial review of the administrative decision made by INEC on April 16 regarding the declaration of her as the victor of the governorship election held on March 18 and the April 15 supplementary election through the representation of Hussaini Zakariyau, SAN.

In addition, she is asking for an order of prohibition and certiorari to stop INEC and its representatives from proceeding with the declaration of the election’s winner while her request for judicial review is being considered.

The application was brought pursuant to Order 34 Rules 1a, Order 3(1) & 3(2) a, b, c, Order 6 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules), 2019 and Section 251 (1)q & r of the 1999 Constitution, as well as Section 149 & 152 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Giving grounds why the motion should be granted, Binani stated that after the collation of results, INEC declared her as the winner of the elections but the PDP and its candidate, Governor Fintiri, resorted to fighting and causing a public disturbance which led to the beating and manhandling of an INEC staff.

She said that because of this issue, INEC had to cancel the first declaration, which was outside of its authority because only the election petition tribunal had such authority.

Binani claimed that by having her declaration revoked, INEC had usurped the authority of the election petition tribunal, the only court with the authority to make a declaration about the conduct of an election.

In the application, she asserted that there was judicial review in place to give the superior court the ability to check lesser courts’ actions and rulings as well as those of the legislative and executive branches of government, including agencies and public officials.

The petitioner further argued that because INEC is a government institution, the court may review its decisions, records, and acts, and that only the court, not INEC, had the authority to invalidate an official’s activities.