The Federal High Court in Akure, Ondo State, has dismissed a suit challenging the qualifications of Lucky Aiyedatiwa and Olayide Adelami, the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidates for the November 16 governorship election.
The suit, filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Agboola Ajayi through his counsel, M. Ndoka (SAN), alleged discrepancies in Adelami’s names on official documents. However, the presiding judge, Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke, ruled that Ajayi lacked the locus standi to file the case.
Court’s Rationale
Justice Adegoke declared that the case was statute-barred, as it was filed outside the 14-day window allowed by the Electoral Act for pre-election matters. Furthermore, she ruled that the use of originating summons instead of a writ of summons invalidated the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
Details of the Suit
Ajayi argued that Olayide Adelami was known by conflicting names, including “Adelami Owolabi Jackson” and “Olaide Owolabi Adelami,” which he claimed disqualified both Adelami and Aiyedatiwa. He sought a declaration invalidating their candidacy and an injunction preventing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from publishing their names or allowing them to contest.
Defense Arguments
Counsel for Adelami, Remi Olatubora (SAN), countered that the discrepancies in the names were merely differences in arrangement, not falsification. He presented evidence, including a 1974 WAEC certificate and a 1982 university degree, showing the names “Adelami Owolabi Jackson” and “Adelami Olaide Owolabi.”
Other defense counsels, including Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) for Aiyedatiwa, Ebun Adegboruwa (SAN) for the APC, and Charles Edosan (SAN) for INEC, argued that Ajayi and the PDP, being non-members of the APC, lacked the legal standing under Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act to challenge the party’s candidates.
Judgment
Justice Adegoke upheld the defense, stating that only aspirants in the APC primaries could contest the qualifications of its candidates. She also noted that allegations of forgery or perjury require criminal evidence from issuing authorities, which was not provided.
The court dismissed the case, ruling it lacked jurisdiction and resolving all issues in favor of the defendants.