Connect with us


INEC challenges jurisdiction of court on Okorocha’s suit



The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Friday encouraged the Federal High Court, Abuja to expel the suite recorded by the Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha provoking the commission’s refusal to issue him his declaration of return.

Okorocha is in court requesting a request, convincing the commission to issue him a testament of return as the representative choose for Imo West Senatorial District.

NAN reports that at the continued hearing, Counsel to INEC, Mrs. Wendy Kuku asked the court to reject the suit for being bumbling, saying the court needed purview to engage the issue.

She assaulted the locale of the court because being a post-race matter, and it was just the National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal that had award to hear it.

READ ALSO: Okorocha vs INEC: Drama as court orders lawyer to produce certificate of mental fitness

Kuku presented that the non-issuance of the declaration of return, which verged on the official and regulatory demonstration of INEC being tested in the suit was race related.

She contended that the reason for the activity, having emerged out of a race that had been directed; the suit was not an issue inside the ward of the court yet that of the council.

The direction implored the court to expel or strike out the suit for ailing in legitimacy and need of purview.

On his part, Mr. N.A. Nnawuchi (SAN), Counsel to the second litigant, (Jones Onyeriri), tested the method of the beginning of the suit.

Nnawuchi contended that initiating the suit by a beginning gathers when the realities were in debate rendered the suit clumsy.

He set that the best possible method of bringing the activity should have been by a writ of request, where oral proof could be called to determine the contest.

Nnawuchi encouraged the court to reject the suitor in the option, request pleadings where oral proof could be called.

Prior, Counsel to Okorocha, Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), in his accommodation, encouraged the court to give the reliefs looked for by his customer.

Ogunwumiju contended that the issue of pressure was the ultimate protection raised by the litigants under the watchful eye of the court and that INEC did not utter a word about coercion.

As per him, the second to eighth litigants don’t have any association with INEC or the returning officer to raise the issue of coercion.

READ ALSO: We’ll help The Gambia learn TSA – Nigeria Government

He presented that the word pressure was a perspective of an individual and that just an individual upon whom coercion was applied could feel it.

“For this situation, the returning officer claimed to have been put under pressure is a specialist of INEC and he has given no proof at all.

“INEC his key has not raised any issue about pressure. There is a contention of proof between the offended party and second to eighth respondents.

“The law is that the court will depend on narrative proof to determine the issue.”

The attorney said that the main narrative proof under the watchful eye of the court was the affirmed exact duplicate of the police report on the gathering of decision result.

Ogunwumiju noticed that the court would find that there was no issue of brutality, risk or coercion, asking the court to concede the reliefs looked for by his customer.

The preliminary Judge, Justice Okon Abang, dismissed the issue until May 20 for a continuation of hearing.


First Pedia - Copyright © 2022 - All Rights Reserved.