No Stopping Aiyedatiwa! Court Dismisses Suit Challenging His Right To Contest Ondo Governorship

Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Aiyedatiwa’s Eligibility for Ondo Guber Poll....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

The Federal High Court in Akure has dismissed a lawsuit questioning the eligibility of Ondo State Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, and his deputy, Olaiyide Adelami, to contest in the November 16, 2024, governorship election.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Toyin Adegoke ruled that the plaintiff, Olugbenga Edema, failed to comply with a prior court directive, leading to the case’s dismissal. The judge also fined Edema ₦100,000 for lack of diligent prosecution.

Edema, the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) governorship candidate, had filed the suit challenging Aiyedatiwa’s nomination by the All Progressives Congress (APC). He sought a court order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw Aiyedatiwa and his deputy from the race.

The suit also sought interpretation of Section 15 of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, questioning the legality of Aiyedatiwa’s nomination process.

Initially, Edema and the NNPP were joint plaintiffs, while Aiyedatiwa, Adelami, INEC, and the APC were listed as defendants.

NNPP Withdraws, Court Orders Amendments

During the legal proceedings, the NNPP withdrew from the case, prompting the court to remove its name as a plaintiff. Justice Adegoke instructed Edema to amend his filings to reflect this change before the next hearing.

However, at Monday’s hearing, Edema’s counsel, Soladoye Ekundayo, disclosed that his client had filed an appeal against the ruling that removed the NNPP from the suit. He requested an adjournment to allow time for necessary amendments.

Opposing the adjournment, defense counsels Charles Edosomwan, Banjo Aiyenakin, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, and Remi Olatubora urged the court to dismiss the case for lack of diligent prosecution.

Edosomwan argued that filing an appeal does not automatically halt proceedings and pointed out that Edema had not formally applied for a stay of proceedings, making an immediate dismissal necessary.

Aiyenakin supported the motion, stating that Edema’s failure to amend his pleadings amounted to case abandonment.