NNPP disowns Edema’s suit against Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy

The leadership of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) has dissociated itself from the suit filed by the candidate of the party during last month’s governorship election in the state, Olugbenga Edema, challenging the candidature of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa and his deputy, Olayide Adelami.

Edema had filed the suit at the Federal High Court sitting in Akure.

He urged the court to interpret the applicability of Section 15 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) over the nomination of APC’s candidates.

The suit, which began, yesterday, before Justice T.B. Adegoke, however, suffered a setback when one of the defence counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Ebun Olu-Adegoruwa (SAN), informed the court that the NNPP, the second plaintiff in the case, had written to withdraw from the suit.

Olu-Adegoruwa said that he had a letter dated December 10, 2024 and signed by the National Legal Adviser of the NNPP, Robert Hon, seeking to withdraw from the suit.

Hon said that since the party did not authorise the pre-election case, hence, the move to withdraw from the suit through the letter.

The legal adviser said that the party’s chairman in the state, Peter Olagookun, who was present in court, was directed to see to the withdrawal of the party in the suit.

Consequently, counsel to INEC and APC, Charles Ejosomwan, Olu-Adegoruwa and Dr Remi Olatubora, all Senior Advocates of Nigeria, said that since the case was standing on one leg, it should be struck out.

However, counsel to Edema and NNPP, Abayomi Ojo, claimed that the letter was not properly filed before the court and that he was not served with a copy to authenticate its origin.

The judge consequently adjourned the case till February 3, 2025, and directed parties to regularise their processes and ensure service to all concerned before the date.

Earlier, Ojo had applied for the amendment of the originating motion, but counsel to INEC and APC opposed the application.

They informed the court that they had each filed preliminary objections to the suit on grounds of jurisdiction and the fact that the first plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the case, as he was not a member of APC.

Olu-Adegoruwa urged the court to hear the respondents’ preliminary objections first since it bordered on the issue of jurisdiction, an oral prayer that was, however, opposed by Ojo.

He argued that since the case was initiated by originating motion, it was the law and practice that the substantive suit and preliminary objection would be heard and determined together by the court.