The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined a motion to substitute the name of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria with that of the All Progressives Congress in the appeal filed against the election of Ondo State Governor Olusegun Mimiko of the Labour Party.
The apex court consequently struck out the ACN's name from the proceedings in the appeal filed by the party and its candidate, Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN, against the July 1, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Akure. The Appeal Court affirmed Mimiko's election in the Ondo State governorship election.
Justices of the Supreme Court have fixed August 29, 2013 (tomorrow), to deliver judgment in the appeal, as well as the one filed by the Peoples Democratic Party and its candidate, Chief Olusola Oke.
The Supreme Court has taken a break from its ongoing vacation to hear the appeal so that it could be heard within the 60 days provided by law for the determination of election petition appeals.
At the commencement of the hearing in the appeal brought by Akeredolu and the ACN, Mimiko's lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, informed the court that the 2nd appellant in the matter, ACN, had ceased to exist as a result of its merger with the Congress for Progressive Change and All Nigeria Peoples Party.
The defunct ACN, CPC and ANPP were the three political parties that merged to form the APC.
Olanipekun argued that it was the duty of the appellant counsel to notify the court to take judicial notice of the demise of the ACN as a result of the merger.
He noted that the appellant counsel had failed to do so, and as a result asked the court to strike out the name of the ACN from the appeal.
Olanipekun said, "It will be unfair for us as counsel to argue before this court that ACN is existing and ask the court to give judgment.
"We urge your Lordships to strike out the name of the 2nd appellant from the appeals."
Counsel to the LP, Yusuf Ali, SAN, also asked the court to strike out the name of the ACN, arguing that the party was no longer in existence, and as a result, could not file an appeal.
Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, aligned with Olanipekun and Ali, asking the court to decline jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the grounds that ACN has ceased to exist.
But counsel to Akerodolu and the ACN, Wole Aina, applied to substitute the name of ACN with APC, arguing that "the names of merging parties may change but their rights remain."
"It is like a lady that has gotten married; she is not dead," he added.
Opposing the application, Olanipekun argued that the APC should have brought the application, and not ACN.
"Since there is a merger, all the merging parties should have been put on notice. In fact APC should have been put on notice. It is APC that should have brought the application; he (Aina) is not representing APC in this matter.
"It is the parties that participated in the election that can participate in a re-run election.
Ali also argued that the APC, having not sponsored Akeredolu in the election, could not be substituted to make him (Akeredolu) its candidate.
In a short ruling, Justice Walter Onnoghen, who headed the Supreme Court panel, upheld the arguments by counsel to Mimiko, LP and INEC, and struck out the name of ACN in the appeal.
"This court has no jurisdiction to grant the application as to do so will be contrary to the law. In consequence, the name of the 2nd appellant (ACN) is hereby struck out of the proceedings," Justice Onnoghen said.
The court fixed August 29 for judgment in the appeal which Akerodolu and his party filed against the Court of Appeal decision, which upheld Mimiko's election.
The appellants want the apex court to order a fresh election in Ondo State, with a new voter register.
Following the striking out of ACN's name from the proceedings, Mimiko's lawyers argued that the appeal had become an academic exercise.
The Supreme Court thereafter heard the second appeal, brought by the PDP and Oke.
PDP lawyer, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, urged the court to allow the appeal and as a result address what he described as "the culture of impunity in the country."
The impunity, according to him, is INEC's "injection" of more than 100,000 voters into the voter register used for the election without publishing or displaying the names.
Mimiko, LP and INEC all opposed the appeal, asking the court to dismiss it.
INEC counsel, Ikpeazu, argued that the appellants failed to prove how the irregularities which they alleged affected the outcome of the election.
He added that the appellants had no case, since they claimed to have secured majority of the valid votes cast in the election, which he said came from the same voter register they rejected.
Source: Punch
