Disqualified Delta PDP Gov Candidate Approaches Appeal Court

Oborevwori, in a nine-ground notice of appeal, filed on Friday, wants the appellate court to set aside the judgment given by Justice Taiwo Taiwo in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/795/2022 by David Edevbie
He argued that it was in the law that information about a candidate’s qualification could only be challenged after the political party sponsoring the candidate submitted the name and INEC published the name

EDITOR’S PICK:

EKO HOT BLOG reports that the Speaker of the Delta State House of Assembly, Sheriff Oborevwori, has gone to the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal to challenge Thursday’s judgment by a Federal High Court in Abuja nullifying his nomination as the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the state.

Oborevwori, in a nine-ground notice of appeal, filed on Friday, wants the appellate court to set aside the judgment given by Justice Taiwo Taiwo in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/795/2022 by David Edevbie.

He has also filed a motion on notice before the Federal High Court in Abuja for a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of his appeal.

He was appealing, among others, that Justice Taiwo misdirected himself in law when he assumed jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the plaintiff, predicated on Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 before submission of his name (the appellant’s) to the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Oborevwori faulted Justice Taiwo for allegedly ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Modibbo Vs Usman (2020) 3 NWLR (PT. 1712) 470, in which he claimed the apex court held that Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which was the same with Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010 had settled the law that cause of action only arose when the name of a candidate was submitted and published.

He said, “The trial Judge side-tracked the decision of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal contrary to the established doctrine of stare decisis and by his decision overruling the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

“The first respondent (Edevbie) on oath admitted that the name of the appellant was yet to be submitted and the trial court held that the first respondent by law, need not wait for the publication of the name of the appellant by INEC.”

Oborevwori argued that it was in the law that information about a candidate’s qualification could only be challenged after the political party sponsoring the candidate submitted the name and INEC published the name and the accompanying affidavit.

FURTHER READING

He further contended that the trial judge misdirected himself in law when he agreed with Edevbie that he (appellant) failed to meet the constitutional requirement of sections 177 (a) and 182(1) J of the 1999 Constitution and that his certificates were forged.

Oborevwori was of the view that the constitutional requirement of Sections 177(a)and 182(1)(J) of the 1999 constitution could only occur upon presentation of a forged certificate to INEC and no other body or person, which had not occurred in his case.

Click to watch our video of the week