By Admin
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday adjourned a suit seeking to void the emergence of Sen. Ireti Kingibe as candidate of the FCT Senatorial District on the platform of African Democratic Party (ADC), until Oct. 14 for definite hearing.
Justice Salim Ibrahim adjourned the case following the unanimous agreement of lawyers to the parties.
Earlier when the case was called, Marshal Abubakar, who appeared for Kingibe, informed the court that they appeared in protest because the plaintiff had failed to serve them with the court processes.
Responding, Moses Awuru, who represented the plaintiff (Mubarak Tijani), said it was only on Monday they confirmed that the court bailiff was yet to effect the service of the processes on Kingibe.
When the judge asked if the bailiff was mobilised for the service, he responded in affirmative.
He said he also had discussion with Abubakar earlier and that he (Abubakar) assured him that he would receive the service of the court documents.
But Abubakar told the court that since they heard about the case on social media, he had applied for the documents.
On his part, oladipupo Oladele, counsel for ADC, told the court that they had been served and had equally responded.
He said they filed a preliminary objection and a counter affidavit to challenge the suit.
Justice Ibrahim, who ordered Awuru to ensure the service of the processes on Abubakar, adjourned the matter until Oct. 14 for definite hearing. .
The judge also ordered that jearing notice be issued and served on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that was not represented in the proceedings.
The plaintiff, Mubarak Tijani, had prayed the court to nullify the purported result of the FCT Senatorial primary election that produced Kingibe as candidate of the ADC for the 2027 poll.
Tijani, an aggrieved aspirant, in a suit filed by his lawyer, Kolawole Olowookere, SAN, also urged the court to restrain ADC from forwarding Kingibe’s name as party’s candidate to INEC.
The aspirant further sought an order, restraining INEC from accepting, recognising and publishing Kingibe’s name as ADC candidate, arising from the purported primary election of May 21.
The plaintiff stated that the primary poll allegedly held on May 21 was not in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2026 and the ADC’s Constitution and Guidelines for the Conduct of Primary Elections for the Nomination of Candidates for the 2027 General Elections.
He, therefore, urged the court to declare the poll unconstitutional, unlawful, invalid, null and void.
Besides, he sought an order directing the party to conduct a fresh, transparent and lawful primary election for the FCT Senatorial District in strict compliance with the Electoral Act, party’s constitution and all applicable guidelines under INEC’s supervision.
Tijani, in the originating summons filed on June 4, named Kingibe, ADC and INEC as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1170/2026.
In the affidavit in support of the application deposed to by the plaintiff himself, he said he is a registered member of ADC and a registered voter.
He said he was aware that in preparation for the 2027 general election, INEC released its timetable for the conduct of primary elections of all the political parties intending to sponsor candidates for the state’s houses of assembly, National Assembly, govemorship and presidential elections.
He said the electoral umpire directed the parties to submit the names of their candidates latest by May 30.
Tijani said after ADC commenced the sale of forms for interested apirants for its prmary elections preparatory to the 2027 general elections, he purchased the Expreasion of Interest and Nomination Forms and was duly screened and cleared to participate in the primary election.
“Following my clearance, I actively campaigned and consulted with delegates and party stakeholders across the Federal Capital Territory,” he said.
He said in line with the congress guidelines, the party fixed May 21 for the poll.
According to him, the said date and venue arrangements for the primary election were communicated to party members, aspirants and their supporters and the 3rd defendant (INEC).
He said prior to the scheduled primary election, party members were duly accredited and expected to vote for their preferred aspirants.
‘On the 21 st May, 2026, I personally attended the designated venue for the conduct of the primary election.
“That election materials required for the conduct of the primary election were not deployed to the designated venues.
“I know that the aspirants, party members and supporters waited for several hours in anticipation of the commencement of voting.
“I know as a fact that no accreditation or voting exercise was conducted at the designated venue.
” I know that no aspirant nor party members were afforded the opportunity to cast his or their vote for any aspirant,” he averred.
Tijani said he became aware later that certain officials and electoral materials meant for the conduct of the primary election were diverted from the approved venue.
He alleged that the said officials and materials were taken to a private location in Gudu, Abuja, at a property belonging to Kingibe, which was not one of the approved venues communicated to aspirants and stakeholders.
According to him, no lawful voting exercise involving aspirants or party members and supporters was conducted at the said location.
“I later discovered that results were being surreptitiously collated at the premises of the 1st defendant notwithstanding the fact that no primary election took place,” he alleged.
The aggrieved aspirant said notwithstanding the absence of voting by delegates, a purported result of the primary election subsequently emerged which purportedly declared Kingibe as the winner of the poll.
‘I know as a fact that the purported result did not emanate from any voting process known to me or witnessed by party members who assembled for the exercise,” he said.
He said this had deprived him of the opportunity of participating in a free, fair and transparent primary election.
Tijani alleged that Kingibe and ADC’s conduct was contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, the party’s guidelines and constitution regulating the conduct of party primaries.
He said he equally exercised his right of appeal to the Appeal Committee of the party, but the committee failed, refused and neglected to consider the appeal.
He said unless the court intervenes, the defendants would continue to rely on the fabricated result to the detriment of his rights and the democratic rights of party members and supporters who were denied the opportunity to vote.
He said it would be in the interest of justice, fairness and the rule of law for the reliefs sought to be granted.
