Court raises fresh issues as FCT residents seek to stop Tinubu’s inauguration
A Federal High Court in Abuja has directed residents of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to respond to issues of jurisdiction over their application seeking to stop Bola Tinubu’s inauguration as president. Justice Inyang Ekwo on Monday said the residents and voters in the FCT should address the court on their locus standi, jurisdiction and […]
A Federal High Court in Abuja has directed residents of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to respond to issues of jurisdiction over their application seeking to stop Bola Tinubu’s inauguration as president.
Justice Inyang Ekwo on Monday said the residents and voters in the FCT should address the court on their locus standi, jurisdiction and whether there is a similar matter before the presidential elections court.
Earlier, counsel for the FCT residents, Chuks Nwachukwu Esq, informed the court that they filed the ex parte application and originating motions seeking a referral of the constitional matters to the Court of Appeal for interpretation.
The residents are seeking a determination of Section 134 (2)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution on any candidate in the February 25 presidential election who did not fulfil the requirements of the 25 per cent of the votes in the FCT.
- May 29: Police launch manhunt for politicians plotting to scuttle inauguration
- Nigerian chef, Hilda Baci, breaks World’s longest cooking record
The residents represented by Anyaegbunam Ubaka Okoye, David Aondover Adzer, Jeffrey Oheobeh Ucheh, Osang Paul and Chibuke Nwachukwu are seeking an order of court restraining the Chief Justice of Nigeria and any judicial officer and/or any authority or persons from swearing in any candidate in the February 25 presidential election as president or vice president.
They also want an order of the court “setting aside or suspending any declaration and/or issuance of a certificate of return to any candidate in the February 25th presidential election in the country or having been elected save and except it is judicially determined with finality that such candidate fulfilled the conditions stated at Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution.”
The case was adjourned to May 18.