From Oluseye Ojo, Ibadan
The New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) in Ogun State has dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Abiodun Adedapo Olusegun, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) to the Court of Appeal over omission of the party’s logo on the ballot papers used in conducting the Saturday March 18, 2023 governorship election in the state.
The appeal was filed before the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Judicial Division, on May 22, 2023 with suit No: EPT/OG/GOV/01/2023, against the judgment of the Governorship and House of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Abeokuta, Ogun State, that dismissed the NNPP’s petition over the omission of the party’s logo on the ballot papers.
The tribunal had on April 15, 2023, dismissed the NNPP’s petition against INEC as first respondent, Abiodun Adedapo Olusegun as second respondent, and APC as the third respondent, on the ground that the debrief counsel asked for discontinuation and withdrawal of the petition.
The NNPP legal counsel, I.D. Izunya, told the Court of Appeal, that it was dissatisfied with the unanimous judgment delivered by the three judges at the tribunal in the petition with number: EPT/OG/GOV/01/2023, on April 15, 2023.
Izunya said: “The learned justices erred in law when they unanimously held that by article 27.18 (iii), (v) and (vii) of the constitution of New Nigeria People’s Party (Hereinafter called NNPP) the National Legal Adviser of NNPP cannot take over the appellant case, brief another counsel and debrief the counsel onrm record, Mr. Peter I Ogah, from further representing the party.
“That by Article 27.18 (iii), (v) and (vi) of the constitution of NNPP the
National Legal Adviser of the Party is empowered to attend to all
litigations and legal defence on behalf of the party at all levels, including its organs and coordinate the activities of Legal Advisers at all levels on legal matters affecting the party.
“That the learned counsel on record, Mr. Peter I Ogar, being engaged to represent the appellant by an organ/branch of the appellant is by virtue of the constitution of the appellant under the control and supervision of the National Legal Adviser of the appellant.
“That Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (As amend) 2018 provided and recognised the right of the appellant to debrief and brief another counsel at any time of the proceeding.
“The learned Justices of the tribunal erred in law when they allowed learned counsel, Peter I Ogar, to successfully withdraw the appellant’s petition and dismissed same when the provisions laid down by the Electoral Act, 2022 for the withdrawal of Petition has not been complied with.
“Section 30 (1) (a) and (b) of the Electoral Act, 2022 clearly provides that before leave for withdrawal of an election petition can be granted, each of the parties in this case, all the respondents shall produce an affidavit stating that no agreement or terms of any kind has been made and no undertaking has been entered. That the withdrawal of the appellant petition was done without the affidavit required by Electoral Act.
“The learned Justices of the tribunal erred in law when they allowed the learned counsel to move motion for withdrawal of the appellants petition despite a protest letter of un-authorisation of withdrawal of petition, dated 27th day of April, 2023 and filed on the 29th day of April, 2023 written by the appellant herself through the National Legal Adviser.
“That the appellant name is on the petition and not the lawyer’s name. That the appellant is the litigant and the person whose name appeared on the process of the court, and therefore the Chief Executive Officer and driver of her case, who drives and determines what and how the case should proceed.”