APC Lagos Assembly aspirants challenge INEC’s failure to enforce Party’s decision

The Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed February 20 and 22 to hear two suits by two All Progressives Congress (APC) members challenging INEC’s failure to enforce the APC’s decision to uphold their candidacies for the March 2 House of Assembly polls.
Justice Rilwan Aikawa will on February 20 hear the suit filed by Famakinwa Adedayo Olufemi, representing Ajeromi/Ifelodun Constituency 1.
The other suit, filed by Akeem Bello representing Amuwo Odofin Constituency II, will be heard by Justice A. O. Faji on February 22.
The first to third defendants in Olufemi’s suit are: INEC, Olumoh Sa’adu Lukman and the APC, while INEC, Wale Rauf and the APC are the first to third defendants in Bello’s suit.
They averred that the APC leadership forwarded their names to INEC as the authentic candidates of the party, but the umpire ignored the party’s decision, contrary to the law.
Both suits were brought by originating summons and backed by affidavits both dated February 7, sworn to by both applicants.
Olufemi averred that he participated in the party’s primary elections for the House of Assembly ticket alongside the second defendant.
He said: “I won the primary election but the result was manipulated in favour of the second defendant.
“…that based on the manipulated result, the name of the 2nd Defendant was wrongly forwarded to the 1st Defendant.”
On his part, Bello said the “second defendant contested the primaries…with me and others and lost the primary election to me.
“Following my victory…my name was published by the third defendant as the candidate of the third defendant in respect of Amuwo Odofin Constituency II.”
Both applicants said by two November 30 letters, the second defendants in both suits withdrew their candidacies, following which the APC leadership, by two November 30 letters, wrote INEC asking it to substitute the names of the withdrawn candidates with Olufemi and Bello’s.

• They accused INEC of ignoring the party’s requests, which they averred that it had no lawful authority to do.