A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit that contested Bola Tinubu’s status as the All Progressives Congress’ Presidential candidate.
A few days after the former Lagos State Governor won the APC Presidential primary, Ngozika Ihuoma, a rights activist and APC loyalist, brought Tinubu and the Peoples Democratic Party’s nominee, Atiku Abubakar, to court on June 9 for allegedly breaking existing electoral rules.
The two Presidential candidates, along with their parties, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, were sued in the case with the filing number FHC/ ABJ/CS/854/2022.
Ihuoma asked for six reliefs, one of which was that Tinubu not be allowed to run for president in 2023 by INEC.
The law firm of Babatunde Ogala (SAN) & Co. filed a counter affidavit in response to the originating summons as well as a notice of preliminary objection on behalf of the APC in defense of the lawsuit.
However, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed the case on Monday.
The plaintiff was referred to as a “meddlesome interloper having no locus standi to institute the suit” by Justice Fadima Muritala.
After Julius Ishola Esq. from Babatunde Ogala, the APC’s attorney, sought the court to dismiss the lawsuit with substantial costs for wasting judicial time, he, as a result, dismissed the case for being speculative.
It was the court’s fourth recent decision to dismiss a lawsuit.
This was further supported by a statement made by Bayo Onanuga, the APC Presidential Campaign Council’s director of media and publicity, hours after the decision.
Onanuga revealed that the counter affidavit contested Ihuoma’s standing and justification for the lawsuit.
He said, “The counter affidavit also punctured Ihuoma’s case as academic, theoretical and an abuse of court process. The court on Monday upheld the defense counsel’s objections and struck out the case.
“In the last couple of weeks, the courts have dismissed several cases brought against Asiwaju Tinubu by opposition elements, including Action Alliance, for being frivolous, lacking in merit and abuse of court processes.”
