Senate Seat: Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Nomination Of PDP Candidate

By Kunle Olasanmi, Abuja

Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, yesterday dismissed a suit challenging the nomination of Alhaji Mohammed Kumaila as candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the forthcoming Borno Central Senatorial District election.

The court dismissed the suit brought by Mr Jubrin Tatabe for being incompetent and lacking in merit.

Tatabe had dragged his party, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Muhammed kumaila and three others to court alleging unlawful substitution of his candidacy in the February 25 senatorial election for the Borno Central Senatorial seat.

The plaintiff emerged winner of the May 23, 2022, primary election of the PDP for the selection of candidate for the Borno Central Senatorial seat.

RELATED

Benue/Zamfara: You Can’t Shield State Assemblies From Accountability, Group Tells Speakers

18 hours ago

Abure-led Labour Party Moves To Sanction Gov Otti, Others

23 hours ago

He however, vied a letter dated July 14, 2022 voluntarily withdrew as candidate of the PDP in the senatorial election in the state.

Following, his withdrawal, the party then conducted a fresh primary on July 15, 2022 which then produced Kumaila as candidate of the party for the said senatorial election.

The PDP accordingly submitted the name of Muhammed kumaila to INEC, which the electoral umpire in turn published as candidate of the PDP for the Borno Central Senatorial election.

But in his suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1240/2022, plaintiff alleged that contrary to the position of the defendants he did not witdraw from the senatorial poll, adding that the letter of withdrawal including his signature was forged.

He therefore asked the court to set aside the said letter of withdrawal, sack kumaila as candidate of the PDP and declare him the authentic candidate of the party in the said poll.

Delivering judgment in the matter on Tuesday, Justice Nwite agreed with the PDP and kumaila that the case of the plaintiff was defective haven been commenced through an Originating Summons instead of a Writ of Summons.

The judge held that the allegation of forgery is criminal in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

While in an Originating Summons a case is determined by only documentary evidence, witnesses must be called to give oral and documentary evidence in a case initiated through a Writ of Summons.

In a criminal case such as this, failure of the plaintiff to call witnesses to prove his allegations is said to be fatal to the case and the judge accordingly dismissed it.