Two
politicians, Adejumo Ajagbe and Olatoye Wahab, have filed a suit before the
Federal High Court in Abuja seeking to stop President Goodluck Jonathan and his
vice, Namadi Sambo, from re-contesting in 2015.
The
plaintiffs argued that by the virtue of constitutional provisions, the
President and the Vice President elected in the same election and sworn into
office on the same date and ceremony are taken to have been elected for one
single term of four years.
This
they argue remains the position notwithstanding the death or the impeachment of
any of them.
Incidentally,
the suit was filed on September 19, the same day, three other plaintiffs, Mase
Acho, Saeeq Sarki (both lawyers) and Murtala Abubakar, jointly filed a similar
suit before the same court seeking a declaration that President Jonathan and
Sambo were ineligible to re-contest.
Ajagbe,
who claimed to be a member of the Peoples Democratic Party in Lagos State, and
Wahab, a member of the All Progressives Congress in Ogun State, said they were
presidential aspirants whose interest would be jeopardized if both Jonathan and
Sambo were not barred.
The
two plaintiffs, who engaged four Senior Advocates of Nigeria, joined the
Independent National Electoral Commission and the Attorney General of the
Federation as the defendants.
The
SANs engaged by the plaintiffs are James Ocholi, A. J. Owonikoko, Okon Efut and
Mahmud Magaji.
Relying
on the provisions of sections 132(1), 135(2)(a) and (b), 137(1)(b), 142(1) and
(2) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions, the lawyers are among
others, seeking an order restraining INEC and the AGF from allowing Jonathan
and Sambo to seeking re-election for their respective offices in 2015.
The
suit marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/662/2014, has been assigned to Justice Ahmed Mohammed
but the two defendants have yet to respond to it.
The
plaintiffs argue that by the virtue of the oaths taken by Jonathan and Sambo
following the death of President Umaru Yar’adua in 2010 and their subsequent
re-election in 2011, both of them were deemed to have completed the two terms
allowed by law.
Their
statement of claim read in part, “That being so, the reference to ‘two previous
elections’ in Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution includes two previous oath
of allegiance and oath of office as President.
“It
is therefore safe to conclude that a Vice President, who had taken the oath of
allegiance and oath of office for two previous terms as President is, in law,
deemed to have been elected into the office of President at two previous
elections, thereby standing disqualified to contest another election into that
office.”
They
raised five questions for the court’s determination and are seeking seven reliefs,
including an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the AGF and INEC from
accepting as candidate in the 2015 presidential election anybody caught by “two
previous election limit and eight year term limit.”
One
of the questions they raised for determination read, “Whether a general
election could be held into the office of the President when the incumbent
President will only have spent a cumulative period of six years in office so
that his re-election will be for no more than two additional years having
regard to the time expressly specified for holding of general election to the
office of President under Section 132(2) of the Constitution and the maximum
term allowed any person under Section 135 of the Constitution.”
They
also sought the following prayers, “A declaration that by the provisions of
Section 135(1)(2) and (2a) of the Constitution, any person holding the office
of the President cannot continued to act in that capacity for a period
exceeding eight years from the date he/she first took or is deemed to have
first taken the oath of allegiance and oath of office, with the exception of
the provision of Section 135(3) of the Constitution.
“A
declaration that a general election cannot be due to be held when the incumbent
President will only have spent a cumulative period of six years in office so
that his re-election will be for no more than two additional years having
regard to the time expressly specified for holding of general election to the
office of President under Section 132 (2) of the Constitution and the maximum
term allowed any person under Section 135 of the Constitution.
“A
declaration that the 1st defendant (AGF) cannot lawfully advise the 2nd
defendant (INEC) to accept as candidate for election to the office of the
President, an aspirant who is caught by two previous elections limit and the
eight-year term limit in the 2015 elections or any subsequent presidential
election.”
No comments:
Post a Comment