Court fixes date to hear suit against Buhari, Atiku

0

The Federal High Court, Abuja, has adjourned until May 7, a suit
seeking the disqualification of President Muhammadu Buhari and the
presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku
Abubakar over alleged excess spending on campaigns.

NAN reports that the presidential candidate of the National Rescue
Movement, NRM, Usman Ibrahim-Alhaji dragged the duo to court, alleging
that they both spent over N1 billion each on campaign expenses in the
presidential elections.

Ibrahim-Alhaji prayed the court to invoke Section 91(2) of the
Electoral Act, 2010 to nullify the participation of Buhari and Atiku in
the February 23 presidential election for allegedly violating the
Electoral Act 2010.

The plaintiff, through his counsel, Ezekiel Ofou, alleged that by
spending over N1 billion each, Buhari and Atiku violated the electoral
law and were liable to be removed as contestants in the election.

At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, Mr Ofou informed the court that he
had served the processes on Buhari and Atiku through substituted means
as was ordered by the court on March 5.

He, however, acknowledged that even though they were yet to respond,
according to the law, had up till 30 days within which to respond.

He added that since they were served on March 22, they had until
April 22 to respond, thereby asked the court for an adjournment to
enable the defendants file their responses.

The trial judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed agreed with the counsel and adjourned the matter until May 7 for further mention.

Mohammed said that since the defendants were still within time to
respond, it could not be adjourned for hearing, but rather for further
mention.

On the last adjourned date, Ofou had told the court that he found it
extremely difficult to serve the court papers on Buhari and Atiku, who
were the main defendants in the suit because of the retinue of security
around them.

Ofou then moved an ex parte motion in which he prayed the court for
an order of substituted service on the two major defendants which was
granted by the judge.

Leave a Reply