Connect with us

Politics

Court Decision: Aisha Binani’s Attempt To Block REC’s Prosecution Denied

Published

on

In the follow-up to Binani’s ex parte motion, the court issued an interim directive instructing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)…CONTINUE READING....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

 

 

the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to maintain the “status quo” concerning their intention to prosecute Hudu.

In the case designated as FHC/ABJ/CS/935/2023 and presented by Binani’s legal representative, M. K. Aondoakaa, SAN, the APC leader sought the interpretation of Sections 144 and 149 of the Electoral Act 2022.

Sections 144 and 149 of the Electoral Act 2022 state that “The Commission shall consider any recommendation made to it by a tribunal with respect to the prosecution by it of any person for an offence disclosed in any election petition.

BBL + No Brain = A Walking Disaster!" – Mary Njoku’s Fiery Take ON Cosmetic Surgery

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, any defect or error arising from any actions taken by an official of the Commission about any notice, form, or document made or given, or other things done by the official in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act, or any rules made thereunder, shall remain valid, unless otherwise challenged and declared invalid by a competent court of law or tribunal.”

Binani aimed to temporarily restrain the involved parties so that INEC could provide reasons why Hudu, her key witness at the Adamawa Tribunal, should not be prosecuted while the Tribunal was in session.

President Bola Tinubu Orders Swift Settlement Of Outstanding Group Life Assurance For Fallen Soldiers And Urges Decisive Action On National Security Challenges

However, INEC’s legal representative, Rotimi Jacobs, argued that the application was a theoretical exercise intended to prevent a court of equal jurisdiction from executing its functions.

In his ruling, Justice Donatus U. Okorowo lifted the interim directive, stating that “There is no court order extending the duration of this ‘status quo’ order.”

The judge emphasized that, according to the law, a plaintiff is not allowed to approach the Federal High Court to halt proceedings in a court of equal jurisdiction, and he lacks the authority to bind a court of equal jurisdiction.

 

Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for the latest travel updates and guides.
Add as preferred source on Google
Advertisement
×