IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA ON THURSDAY, THE 8™ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 ON THURSDAY, THE 8" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE D. E. OSIAGOR JUDGE ‘SUIT NO.:FHC/ABJ/CS/1463/2022 BETWEEN: PRINCE (PROF) IFAGBEMI AWAMARIDI AND PLAINTIFF 1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSON (INEC) 2. LABOUR PARTY (LP) 3. GBADEBO RHODES-VIVOUR DEFENDANTS JUDGEMENT ORIGINATING SUMMONS This suit is commenced by an Originating Summons filed on the 23° of August 2022 and brought pursuant to Section 6 (6)(b), 285 (14) (A) and (B) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), sections 29(1) and 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022, Article 28(3) of the Labour Party Constitution and Order 3 Rules 1, 6 and 7 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and under the inherent Jurisdiction of this honourable court seeking the determination of the following questions: 1, Whether in view of the provisions of section 29(1) and (3), sections 33 and Section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 1" Defendant does not have the duty to reject the name of the 3” Defendant as the nominated Lagos State Governorship Candidate of the .2™ Defendant having already recognized and Published the name of the Plaintiff who won. the first and |: primaries of the 2™ Defendant conducted on 1* Governorship candidate of the 2 Defendant. lawfully recognized June 2022 as the Lagos State ' |. ADEGOKE Otetinten rau cone EXECUTIVE FEDERAL HIGH COURT weWhether in view of the provisions of section 29(1) and (3), sections 33 and section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 2™ Defendant can nominate the 3° Defendant as its Governorship candidate for Lagos state when the Plaintiffs who is its lawfully nominated candidate by virtue of the primary election held on 1" june, 2022 has neither died nor withdrawn his candidacy to create a vacancy as required by the Electoral Act;2022 Whether by the Interpretation of section29(1) and (3), 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the lagos state, conducted by the 2 3" Defendant emerged as winner sections. 33 and section Purported governorship primary election for Defendant on'10"" August 2022, and which the waé not Void, illegal and of no effect in view of the fact that the Plaintiff whovis the ‘validly nominated and elected candidate of the 2" Defendant by virtue of valid’ ies Held'on 1° June 2022 has neither died nor withdrawn his candidacy as required by the Electoral Act 2022 Whether in view of the provisions of 29(1) and (3), sections 33 and section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, it was not wrong and unlawful for the 1 Defendant to attend and monitor the illegal governorship primary election of the 2 Defendant held on the 10" of Junje:2022°which was monitored by the 1* Defendant and which produced: the’ Plaintiff as the winner was subsisting, the Plaintiff having not dies nor withdrawn his candidacy. - Whether by the interpretation of section 29(1) and (3), sections 33 and section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 2” Defendant can proceed to submit the name of the 3" Defendant to the 1** Defendant as its Lagos state governorship candidate when the primary election held on the 10 August 2022 which Produced the 3" Defendant was null, Void, illegal and unlawful. » Whether by the combined provisionsiand interpretation of section 2(1) and (3), sections 33 and section 84(1) of the: Electoral Act, 2022 and Article 28(3) of the 2° Defendant's Constitution and Election Guidelines, the Plaintiff is not the valid and lawful Lagos State Governorship Candidate of the 2™ Defendant. - Premise on questions 1-6 above raised and contended by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff claims the following reliefs The Plaintiff therefore claims against the Defendants as follows: 1, A DECLARATION of this court that the purported Lagos State Governorship Primary Election of the 2 Defendant held on the 10" of August 2022 and which Produced the 3" Defendant as winner is null, void, illegal and unlawful and a violation of the Electoral Act 2022,, the ‘Plaintiff who is the Lagos State jomowus Al ‘ CERTIFIED Tana FEDERAL WIGH COURTGovernorship candidate of the 2" Defendant having not died nor withdrawn his candidacy,. ‘A DECLARATION of this court that the 2" Defendant cannot submit the name of the 3" Defendant as its Lagos State Governorship Candidate to the 1" Defendant, the 3" Defendant having not been validly elected . A DECLARATION of this court that the 1° Defendant has the duty to reject the name of the 3" Defendant as the Lagos State Governorship Candidate of the 2" Defendant, the 3 Defendant having not been validly elected. «A DECLARATION of this court that the’1"* Defendant cannot publish, hold out or recognize the name of the 3" Defendant'as the candidate of the 2" Defendant with respect to the Lagos State Governorship election, the 3" Defendant having not been validly elected, ‘A DECLARATION of this court that the plaintiff is the Lagos State Governorship candidate of the 2" Defendant his name having been sent to the 1* Defendant by the 2™ Defendant as same having being recognized and published by the 1 Defendant in line with the provisions of the electoral Act 2022. 6. A DECLARATION of this court that the Plaintiff is the Lagos State governorship candidate of the 2" Defendant having won the valid primary election of the 2" Defendant conducted on 1" June 2022 and having not died nor withdrawn his candidacy at any point in time 7. AN ORDER of this court mandating the 1* Defendant to reject the name of the 3 Defendant as the candidate of the 2"! Defendant with respect to the Lagos State Governorship election, the 3" Defendant having not been validly elected. 8. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1* and 2 Defendant, their servants, privies, agents or howsoever from recognizing, holding out and dealing with the 3° Defendant as the Lagos State Governorship Candidate of the 2™ Defendant, the 3 Defendant having not being validly elected. 9. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION. restraining the 3" Defendant from parading himself or howsoever holding out himself, as the Lagos State Governorship Candidate of the 2’ Defendant, the 3° Defendant having nit been validly elected. 10.AN ORDER OF THIS COURT directing the 1 and 2™ Defendant to recognize the Plaintiff as the candidate of the 2™ Defendant with respect to the Lagos State Governorship election, the name of the Plaintiff having been duly submitted to and published by the 1 Defendant 11.AN SUCH FURTHER ORDERS as this court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.In support of the Application is an Affidavit of 33 paragraphs deposed to by the Plaintiff in this suit and attached with 8 exhibits. Counsel in his Written Address raised 4 issues for determination being: 1. Whether by the combined reading of section 84(1),Section 29(1) and Section 33, of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 2™!/Defendant can substitute the name of the Plaintiff with that of the 3" Defendant as its Lagos State Governorship candidate for the 2023 General elections Whether by the combined reading of section 84(1),Section 29(1) and Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 1° Defendant is not bound to reject the name of the 3" Defendant as the Lagos’ State ‘Governorship candidate of the 2™ Defendant for the 2023 General Elect ns 3. Whether by the combined reading of section 84(1),Section 29(1) and Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 the subsequent and purported Lagos State Governorship Primary election conducted by the 2" Defendant on the 10” August, 2022 which produced the 3 Defendant as winner is not null, void and invalid. i 4. Flowing from issues 1-3 above, whether the Plaintiff is not the valid, lawful and subsisting candidate of the 2 Defendant for the Lagos State Governorship election. On issue 4, it is counsel submission that section 33 of the Electoral Act 2022 delineated the modus operandi to be followed and circumstances where a candidate for an election can be substituted by a political party in Nigeria same being either by death of the candidate or by withdrawal of the candidate..Counsel submits that he never at any time withdrew his candidature thus the purported primary election held on the 10 of August 2022 which produced the 3 Defendant as winner is an effort in futility as same cannot stand. Counsel submit that in view of the non-withdrawal of candidature of the Plaintiff, the 2"° Defendant cannot substitute the name of the Plaintiff with that of the 3" Defendant, On issue 2, counsel submit that the 1" Defendant is under obligation to refuse the name Of the 3" Defendant in line with section’29 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 as only candidates who emerge from valid primary elections of their parties will be accepted and published as candidates, Counsel adds that the primary election which held on 1° June 2022 wherein the Plaintiff emerged as winner was duly monitored and supervised by the 1" Defendant in line with section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022. Counsel therefore submit that the Plaintiff having not withdrawn his candidature still remains the valid and only governorship candidate of the 2" Defendant in Lagos State.It ls counsel submission on issue 3-that the purported Lagos State Primary Election conducted on the 10"" of August, 2022 which emerged the 3" Defendant as the winner is null and void. Counsel relies on the provision of section 33 of the Electoral Act 2022 which provides that a political party cannot change or substitute its candidate whose name has been submitted to the 1" Defendant. except in the case of death or withdrawal by the candidate. On issue 4, counsel submits that the Plaintiffis‘the valid, lawful and subsisting candidate of the 2" Defendant for the Lagos State Goyetnorship:election having been elected at a valid primary election which:held on the 1" of June 2022:and same was recognized and published by the 1* Defendant. Counsel concludes by seeking for the preservation of the people-given mandate of the Plaintiffs’ the Governorship. candidate. of the 2 Defendant and urges the court to grant his prayers. The 1* Defendant on the 28 of November 2022 filed a Counter Affidavit of 6 paragraphs deposed to by Emmanuel Tsebo, a Litigation Manager in the firm of the 1* Defendant's counsel. The counter-Affidavit is attached with three exhibits marked Exhibit A-C. Counsel raised a sole issue for determination being: Whether the Plaintiff has placed sufficient materials before this honourable court for the grant of the reliefs sought? Counsel in arguing submit that any person'seeking the exercise of the court's discretion has the burden of presenting all the material facts necessary for the exercise of that discretion as the court does not exercise its discretion in vacuo but on legal evidence and materials placed before it. See DANGOTE V CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PLATEAU STATE (2001) 9 NWLR (PT. 717) 132 at 161-162. Counsel submits that the Plaintiff has d to prove its case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs he is seeking. It is counsel further submission that the 1 Defendant is not concerned with who the 2 Defendant's sponsors in any election as it is only empowered by virtue of section 153(2) CFRN 1999 (as amended) to attend and observe congress and convention of a political party of which they have done in this instant suit. Counsel submit that the law is settled that political parties have the discretion to nominate candidates of their choice for elections, but they must do so in accordance with their Constitution, Guidelines and the law of the land, And that where they fail to do 50, it is only the court that has the power to ensure the sanctity of the law is upheld. Counsel further submits that the 1" Defendant maintains neutrality in this matter and has provided the court with the evidence within its care for the just determination of this suit.The Plaintiff on the 28" of November 2022 in response to the 1" Defendant filed a Further Affidavit of 16 paragraphs and a Reply on Points of Law. The Further Affidavit is deposed to by the Plaintiff and attached with 3 exhibits of which the court has considered, The 2” Defendant on the 14" of November 2022 filed a Counter-Affidavit of 22 Paragraphs deposed to by Ademola Lawson, a Litigation Secretary in the law firm of Akingbade Oyelekan & Co counsel to the 2™ Defendant. The Affidavit is attached with three exhibits marked exhibit A-C. Counsel raised two issues for determination being: 1, Whether the Applicant has locus standito‘initiate this suit 2. Whether this matter is within'the internal affairs of the 2" Respondent It is counsel submission that paragraphs 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 of the Plaintiffs supporting Affidavit contravene the provisions of section 115(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 for being legal arguments and/or conclusions thus liable to be struck out. See IZEDONMWEN V UBN PLC (2012) 6 NWLR (PT. 1259) 1 at 51H. Counsel in arguing both issues together submit that,the;actions upon which the Plaintiffs action were predicated are not only concluded but also totally established that the Plaintiff did not pay the required fees as stipulated by the'2™ Defendants Guidelines to be entitled to hold the position the Plaintiff is seeking. Counsel added that payment of expression of interest form and nomination form purchased from the 2™ Defendant are conditions precedent before sponsorship by the party in any election. Counsel submits that the issue of membership,.nomination and sponsorship of a Political Party is an internal affair for which the court of law cannot intervene or enquire into. See AGI V PDP & ORS (2016) LPELR-42578 (SC). It is counsel submission that the rules of the political party must be obeyed by all members of the party, as the party's decision is final over its own affairs. Counsel added that when it comes to nomination of its candidate for election, the national executive committee of the party has the final say as whoever they approve or endorse as candidate cannot be opposed by anyone. The Plaintiff replied the 2" Defendant by filing’a Further Affidavit and Reply on Points of Law on the 23" of November 2022, The Further Affidavit of 27 paragraphs was deposed to by the Plaintiff and attached with two exhibits which the court has considered, The 3" Defendant responded on the 17" of November 2022 by filing a Counter-Affidavit of 21 paragraphs deposed to by the 3" Respondent himself, The Affidavit is attached with 4 Exhibits marked Exhibit GRV/1 ~ GRV/S. Counsel in his Written Address raised the 4 issues as raised by the Plaintiff in the Originating Summons to wit:Whether by the combined reading of section 84(1),Section 29(1) and Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 2"! Defendant’ can substitute the name of the Plaintiff with that of the 3 Defendant as its Lagos State Governorship candidate for the 2023 General elections 2. Whether by the combined reading of section 84(1),Section 29(1) and Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 1* Defendant is not bound to reject the name of, the 3"? Defendant as the Lagos; State Governorship: candidate of the a Defendant for the 2023 General Elections 3. Whether by the combined reading'of'section 84(1),Section 29(1) and Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 the subsequent and purported Lagos State “ Governorship ‘Primary election conducted by''the 2°? Defendant on the 10" August, 2022 which produced the 3" Defendant as winner is not null, void and invalid. 4. Flowing from issues 1-3 above, whether the Plaintiff is not the valid, lawful and subsisting candidate of the 2” Defendant for the Lagos State Governorship election. In arguing issue 1, counsel submit that by the combined reading of sections 29(1), 33 and 84(1) of the Electoral Act 2022, the 2":Defendant having being confronted by the Plaintif’s withdrawal was bound to take the necessary steps it took that led to the emergence of the 3 Defendant as its Lagos State Governorship Candidate for the 2023 General Elections. See INEC V PDP & ORS (2022) LPELR-57379 (CA). Counsel added that the Affidavit if non-withdrawal as deposed to by the Plaintiff is an indication of a withdrawal as it is only when a withdrawal has been made that the issue of non- withdrawal comes to play. On issue 2, it is counsel submission that the’ procedure adopted by the Plaintiff to determine validity of his withdrawal is wrong'as‘an Originating Summons is used only for the purposes of interpreting undisputed facts, law and instruments. See NWOSU V APP & ORS (2019) LPELR-49206 (CA). On issue 3, counsel submits that the Lagos State Governorship Primary election conducted by the 2" Defendant on the 10" of August 2022 is valid. Counsel added that the 3" Defendant validly and constitutionally emerged as the 2 Defendant's Governorship candidate for the fourth coming 2023 general elections, Counsel on issue 4 submits that there is no law relating to a situation where a candidate that has withdrawn changes his mind and that the 2 Defendant complied with the law in the emergence of the 3% Defendant as its candidate. Counsel therefore urges the court to dismiss the suit. ]OMOWUMII. ADEG Pana apes FEDERAL HON eSURSE x tase tate =The Plaintif in reply to the 3" Defendant filed:a Further Affidavit of 12 paragraphs on the 23” of November 2022 and a Reply on'Pointsof Law wherein counsel submit that the Certificate of Return issued by the 2" Geéfendant as attached by the 3" Defendant Is worthless in law as same was unsigned. Counsél urges the court to refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the 3 Defendant. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION The 3 Defendant/Applicant on the 28" of November 2022 filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection brought pursuant to Section:.285(9) ‘of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and'under the inherent jurisdiction of this court praying for the following: 1. AN ORDER of this honourable court dismissing or striking out this suit for being statute barred 2. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER AND OTHER ORDERS as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances! The Application is made upon the following grounds: 1. The foundational complaint against the 2" and 3" Defendant in this case is the submission of the Plaintiff's Letter of withdrawal dated 18 June 2022 to the 1° Defendant ‘ 2. The Plaintiff admitted on oath in paragraphs 11, 13 and 14 of his Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons that he knew of the letter of withdrawal on 4” August 2022 and on his instruction his solicitor to write exhibit IFA 5 to the 1° Defendant on 5" August 2022. 3. Paragraph 4 of the exhibit IFA 5, a letter dated 5/8/22 sent to the 1° Defendant by an Ayo Ademiluyi Esq, the Plaintiffs solicitors, states as follows: the fact is that the letter, the purported withdrawal and intended primaries are fraudulent and should be disregarded and voided by your commission” 4. The cause of action in this suit arose on 18" June 2022, when the letter of withdrawal dated 18 June 2022 was, issued by the Plaintiff and same submitted to the 1" Defendant, or on 5" August 2022 when the Plaintiff instructed his counsel to write an alleged protest letter to the 1 Defendant. 5. This suit was filed on 23/08/2022 6. This suit is a pre-election matter7. A pre-election matter suit is bound:to be filed within 14 days of the cause of action in line with section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). 8. The cause of action in this case was statute-barred as at the date this action was filed. The application is supported by an Affidavit of 9 paragraphs deposed to by Olagbade Benson, counsel to the 3” Defendant. Counsel raised a single issue for determination in his Written Address to wit: Whether this honourable court .can grant this application in the "circumstances of this case? Counsel in arguing sought the leave of the court to argue all the questions raised in the Originating Summons and adds that this suit is incompetent having been filed outside the 14 days prescribed by section 285(9) of the 1999 CFRN (As Amended). See TUKUR V MAGAJI & ORS (2022) LPELR-58847 (CA), PALI V IBRAHIM & ORS (2019) LPELR-49047 (CA). Counsel therefore urges the court to dismiss this suit for being statute barred. The Plaintiff on the 28 of November’ 2022ifiled'2 Counter-Affidavit in response of 8 paragraphs deposed to by the Plaintiff. Counsel in his Written Address raised a sole issue for determination being: Whether in the circumstances of this suit, the Plaintiff's case is statute Barred? It is counsel submission that the Originating,Processes of a claimant is what determines which court has jurisdiction to cognize the claims and that same also determines if the action is statute-barred or not. See EGBE V' ADEFARASIN (1987) 18 NSCC (PT. 1) 1 at P.17. Counsel adds that the wrong which the Plaintiff seeks redress on was done the day of the substitution primaries of the 2” Defendant held on 10" August, 2022 which is the cause of action. Counsel therefore submit that the Plaintiff's action was filed within the time allowed by the law and not statute.barred thus the court should dismiss the Preliminary Objection. a Resolution on Preliminary Objection The 3" Defendant/Applicant preliminary objection is based on section 285(9) of the 1999 CFRN (As Amended) which provides thus: jomot NA, a] aGERTine Thun Sach rene IKOYI LAs AO?Notwithstanding anything.to the contrary _in this constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or‘action complained of in the suit”. The Supreme Court in Musa v Umar & others (2020) 11 NWLR.Pt. 1735 page 213 at 258 held that: “For the purpose of calculating 14 days stipulated in section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republiciof- Nigeria will accrue from the date of the submission of the:name...” From paragraphs 11-15 of the Affidavit inisupport.of the Originating Summons, the Plaintiffs cause of action is primarily his substitution/ withdrawal of his name from INEC. Paragraphs 11-15 are reproduced below- paragraphs 11: Paragraphs 12: Paragraphs 13: Paragraphs 14: Paragraphs 15: that sometime around 4" August 2022it came to my notice that some National Executive. Members of the Party were planning to substitute my name as the candidate of Labour party while alleging that | already resigned as the candidate of the party. That at no point in time did | resign or withdraw my candidature as the Lagos State Governorship Candidate of the 2” Defendant That on the S® of August 2022, | immediately deposed to an Affidavit of non-withdrawal before the Federal High Court while also instructing mu solicitor to write letters informing the 8 Defendant that | did not withdraw and does not intend to withdraw and will not withdraw my candidature. That the Affidavit andithe Lawyers letter of non-withdrawal dated 5 August 2022 were served'in the 1% Defendant on 5" August, 2022, Attached and marked EXHIBIT IFA 5 are copies of the said documents. ‘That despite my solicitor’s letter to the 1° Defendant to forestall the replacement of my*name.and in blatant defiance of the Electoral Act 2022, the 2"! "Defendant obviously went ahead to conduct an illegal substitution primaries with the hope of changing my name as the validly elected candidate of the 2’ Defendant. ‘Attached and marked Exhibit IFA 6 are various newspaper publications showing the 2" Defendant conduct of the illegal oot PRINCIPAL | EXECUTED TEDERAL nian courtsubatton Primaries on the’10" day of August 2022, wherein one bo Rhodes-vivour was. alleged, to have emerged as another governorship candidate of the Labour Party. The question is, when did the Plaintiff become aware of the withdrawal of his name? Exhibit IFA 5 attached to the Plaintiff's Origir riginating Process being his solicit INEC dated 5/8/22 offers some insight. 1g Process being his solicitor’s letter to The letter reads in paragraphs 3 & 4 as follows: “Despite Professor's Awamaridi being: the. substantive candidate, the Labour Party National Chairman and. secretary has caused (as displayed publicly) a letter to be written to. your commission notifying you of withdrawal of candidate and intention to conduct PRIMARIES in relation to the Labour Party GOVERNORSHIP CANDIDATE for Lagos ‘Stote” “The fact is that the letter, the PURPORTED withdrawal; and intended PRIMARIES are Fraudulent and should be disregarded and voided by your Commission” (underlining mine for emphasis).” The Plaintiff's right to judicial relief commenced when his party wrote to INEC to withdraw his name and not when a primary was conducted. A cause of action is the aggregate of facts giving rise to a right of action, it is the substitution or withdrawal of Plaintiffs name when he allegedly has not died nor withdrawn. That is the fulcrum of the Plaintiff's action. By the tenor of his lawyer's letter dated 5-8-2 (exhibit IFA 5), the Plaintiffs right of action had accrued but he waited till 23-08-22, which is 18 more days before filing this suit, This suit Is therefore caught by the provisions of section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the right of action extinguished. | so hold. ‘The Preliminary Objection is sustained and the suit is liable to be struck out. RESOLUTION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE SUIT ‘The court will be adopting a sole issue for determination to wit: ‘whether the Plaintiff or the 3" defendant is the lawful candidate of the 2" defendant in the Lagos State Governorship election?” From the political spectrum of the parties, the Plaintiff relied on his membership card, newspaper publications, online publications, his lawyer's protest letter ctagainst. alleged withdrawal, affidavit of non-withdrawal, the Labour Party's timeline for its primaries dated the 9"" of March, 2022; the Lagos State Labour Party notice of Lagos State primaries dated the 31" of May; 2022 to lay claim as the party's authentic candidate, The 2" & 3" Defendants on the other hand, questioned the Plaintiff's membership of the party due to non-renewal of membership and thus conducted a substitution primary due to failure of the Defendant to meet the required financial obligation but particularly in paragraph 20 of the 2" defendant's counter-affidavit that the 2": defendant (Labour Party) .did not send:the name of the Applicant to the att Defendant. The 3% Defendant went further to attach pictures of their keenly contested primaries that produced the 3 Defendant as the winner with the Certificate of Return ‘The umpire-INEC (the 1% defendant) in its weighty deposition revealed that, there were two Gubernatorial Primaries they observed. The 1* primaries that produced the Plaintiff was initiated by a letter written by the Plaintiff as the Chairman of Labour Party (Lagos state chapter), on the 31% of May, 2022 wherein the Plaintiff was the sole contestant and was declared winner. The 2™ primary was initiated by a letter of 2 August, 2022 where the Labour Party headquarters wrote of a substitution primary which later held on the 10" of August, 2022 producing the 3" defendant as the winner. It appears: therefore that, both primaries had their primary election reports. From the above salient points, why did the 2™ defendant deny sending the Plaintiff's name? Why did the 2" defendant conduct a fresh primary? I will examine closely the depositions and documentary exhibits. The 1* defendant admitted to. monitoring the 2 primaries but from the events leading to the.2 primaries, the court finds as follows: 1. That the Plaintiff initiated the letter as the Lagos Chairman to INEC for the Lagos state gubernatorial primary schedule where he won. See the letter date the 31% of May, 2022 to INEC REC Lagos- Exhibit A-Annexures | of the 1* defendant. 2. Also, that it is the Plaintiff who communicated INEC as to the venue of the Lagos State gubernatorial primary. See paragraph 12(h) of the Plaintiff's further affidavit in Reply to the 2" Defendant's counter-affidavit. lomow' . Al ai Morte Teeehy i WIOH COURT FEDERAL | 23. Itis the Plaintiff's Lagos State 17 executive members who affirmed him’ by consensus as the winner of his gubernatorial primaries. See INEC Report- letter dated the 14" of June, 2022- Exhibit A of the 1" Defendant. 4. The Lagos State Labour Party. also filed a report of the primaries to the INEC office, See Annexures II to Exhibit A ofthe 1% Defendant. Can it be deduced that all the above were in consonance with the Party's Constitution, Guidelines and Electoral Act, 2022? The 1* Defendant's exhibits excerpt.of the Labour Party Constitution and by Article 28 which provides for the nomination. of-cahdidsites for an election at any level, it reads thus; “The national executive council of the party shall formulate guidelines and regulations for nomination of candidates for election into public offices at all levels subject to the provision of this Constitution.” Also, Section 84(5)(b) of the Electoral Act,:2022 is very explicit in conferring the exclusive power on the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party to appoint a date for the Primaries. The case of CHIEF S.0. ADEBANJO & ORS v: P.D.P & ORS (2012) LPELR-8430 (CA) held; is the exclusive prerogative of the party headed by the National Executive Committee to regulate & formulate guidelines for elections in public offices at all levels. The State Executive Committee of the party could not validly conduct primaries or state congress for the nomination or election of governorship. candidate. See C.P.C v. SEMATOR YAKUBU GARBA LADO (2011) LPELR - 3997 (CA) where the Court of Appeal held; “therefore, it is the party at the National level that has the responsibility under the Electoral Act to. give .noticerof congress for nomination. It is the political party that shall delegate. party members than will conduct the primaries in nominating the candidates. Furthermore, “the provisions are unequivocal on the responsibility of the National Executive Council of the party to initiate and coordinate party primary giving specific date for the primaries” Nwodo JCA. In my earlier judgment in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1583/2022 | found in that suit involving same parties in which this present Plaintiff who also doubled as Plaintiff in that case. In paragraph 15 that he conducted this gubernatorial primary and in 3wv paragraph 12(h) further affidavit in reply to the 2ns defendant deposed in this suit. it reads; “Also in 2022 as the Chairman of the 2! defendant in Lagos State | was the one who communicated to the 1‘ defendant to notify her of the venue in Lagos State where the 2" defendant's primaries will hold for the Lagos State, House of Assembly House of Representatives Senate and Gubernatorial primary in line with the 2014 Constitution of the 2” defendant.” That the 2" and 3" defendant admitted the Plaintiff. was a place holder goes to issue as that admission is not unequivocal as th 2" defendant out rightly denied forwarding the Plaintiff’s name to-INEC (1#*idefendant). Besides, place holder is unknown to our Electoral jurisprudence as you are either a winner of a primary or you have withdrawn or replaced due to death. In the final analysis therefore, the publication of the name of the 3° defendant as the gubernatorial candidate of the "4 defendant by the 1" defendant is regular and subsisting and not liable to be set fe as the Plaintiff's primaries producing the Plaintiff was initiated and conducted a by the Plaintiff. iff’s suit, resolve all questions against the Hence, | find no merit in the Plain Plaintiff, refuse all reliefs sought and the case is dismissed. 08/12/2022 APPEARANCES: ‘A.A Akpomreta with B.A Philips for the Plaintiffs Abduljelil Musa for 1* Defendant Abass Ibrahim for the 2" Defendant Olagbade Benson for the 3" Defend: Judgement delivered in the open Co CEnTiriua aRABESOKC PRCA ED TRUE Copy: J 08/12/2022 FEDERAL wan gorTRR NH z l Lagar