Falana faults court judgment, saying it granted relief not sought by claimants
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Rights activist Femi Falana, SAN has faulted the judgment of Yenagoa Federal High Court on 27 May which said Goodluck Jonathan can run for President again despite having occupied the Villa for five years from 2010 to 2015.
Jonathan served out the last one year of the tenure of the late Umar Yar’Adua from May 2010 to May 2011 and then won election in his own right and served as President from May 2011 to May 2015.
Jonathan in 2015 lost to Muhammadu Buhari in his re-election bid to serve a second term in his own right.
Buhari signed into law on 4 June 2018 an amendment in the Constitution in which Section 137 (3) says: “A person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.”
Earlier in May 2022, two members of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham, filed the lawsuit arguing that Jonathan was not qualified to contest for a second term by virtue of the amendment.
Justice Isa Dashen disagreed. He ruled on 27 May that Jonathan’s right to vie for the office of President again cannot be stopped by any retroactive law.
Judge granted relief claimants did not seek, Falana argues
Falana reacted on 30 May, insisted in a statement that “the claimants prayed the Federal High Court to disqualify the 1st Defendant (Dr. Goodluck Jonathan) from contesting the 2023 presidential election.
“In spite of the directive of the National Judicial Council that such matters be filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court the Yenogoa Judicial Division of the Court assumed jurisdiction, heard the case and dismissed all the reliefs sought by the Claimants.
“But without any counterclaim filed by any of defendants the Court decided to grant a relief not sought by the Claimants.
“In other words, the relief granted by the Court to the effect that the 1st Defendant is not disqualified by the 2018 constitutional amendment was not sought or prayed for by the Claimants.
_________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
Only Buhari can suspend Idris, by law, says Falana
Malami manipulates, impedes justice, says Falana
Falana says by law, Abuja can’t reject EndSars panel report
__________________________________________________________________
Defendants did not dispute lawsuit
“It is interesting to note that the 2nd Defendant (All Progressive Congress) and 3rd Defendant (Independent National Electoral Commission) were served the processes but did not file any process in the case. They were equally not represented by lawyers for reasons best known to the Defendants,” Falana added.
“As there was no dispute between the parties the claimants lacked the locus standi to have maintained the action.
“On that score the case ought to have been stuck out on the authority of the case of Peoples Democratic Party v Edede & Anor (CA/OW/87/2022) filed by the PDP, v Edede & Anor. wherein the Court of Appeal struck out the suit marked: FHC/UM/CS/26/2022 and held that the federal high court Umuahia had no jurisdiction to hear the case because Edede lacked the locus standi to have filed the suit in the first place.”
