Rivers LG Poll: Court reserves judgment in APC’s suit against INEC

APC argued that RSIEC had not met the condition precedent for the conduct of local government elections in Rivers.

News Agency of Nigeria • September 5, 2024

APC LOGO (Credit; Premium Times Nigeria)

On Thursday, the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court reserved judgment in the suit filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over the conduct of the local government election in Rivers.

Justice Peter Lifu said a date for the judgment would be communicated to parties after lawyers in the suit adopted their processes and argued their case for and against the suit.

The APC, in the suit, prayed the court to pronounce that INEC can only release the register to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) “in strict conformity and compliance with the mandatory provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2022.”

The party argued that the electoral umpire, in line with the provision, can stop continuous voter registration at least 90 days before the poll date.

It argued that RSIEC had not met the condition precedent for the conduct of local government election in Rivers.

Upon the resumed hearing, the court listened to all pending preliminary applications, including those seeking joinders brought by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Boot Party, as well as the substantive suit.

Goddy Uche (SAN) also presented his motion for a change of counsel and discontinuance of the suit on behalf of the Rivers chapter of the APC.

The motion was filed by Mr Uche and signed by the chairman of the party in the state, Emeka Beke, and Sam Etetegwung, APC secretary in Rivers, respectively.

However, Joseph Daudu (SAN), who appeared for the plaintiff (APC national body), prayed the court to grant their relief.

In their arguments, Taiwo Taiwo (SAN), counsel to the Attorney General of Rivers, and Femi Falana (SAN), who appeared for INEC, challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case.

They equally challenged the competence of the suit on the ground that it was statute-barred.

The respondents further contended that the proper court with jurisdiction to entertain the case is the Rivers Division of the Federal High Court.

They also argued that, being a vacation court, the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case without obtaining the consent of both parties.

Justice Lifu consequently reserved judgment in the matter after listening to the parties.

(NAN)

We have recently deactivated our website's comment provider in favour of other channels of distribution and commentary. We encourage you to join the conversation on our stories via our Facebook, Twitter and other social media pages.