More trouble For Melaye, INEC tells court why recall process must continue
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, yesterday, 20 July, approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking it to vacate the interim order that stopped process for the recall of Senator Dino Melaye.
The commission lawyer, Mr. Sulayman Ibrahim, queried the legal propriety of the restraining order that Justice John Tsoho of the high court issued against it on July 6.
Justice Tsoho had ordered all the parties involved in the recall process to maintain their status quo until September 29 when the court will hear an originating summon Melaye filed to challenge his planned removal from the Senate.
The interim order followed an ex-parte motion Melaye lodged before the court through his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN.
In a 16-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion on notice, INEC, contended that the court lacked the powers to stop it from initiating the recall process it said was one of its time bound duty under section 69 of the 1999 constitution, as amended.
Besides, the commission alleged that Melaye misrepresented and suppressed material facts and thereby misled the judge to issue an interim order of injunction in his favour.
INEC told the court that it had on June 21, received a petition dated June 19, seeking Melaye’s recall from the Senate.
It said upon the receipt of the petition, it accordingly published a time table and schedule of activities for the recall process, in line with provisions of the law.
INEC decried that the court had by its restraining order, a copy of which it said was served on it on July 10, tied its hands.
Similarly, INEC, through its second motion, prayed the court to order for accelerated hearing of the substantive suit.
It also urged the court to okay that the matter be heard and determined during the ongoing court vacation.
Meanwhile, Melaye, yesterday, persuaded the vacation judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, to grant him seven days to respond to INEC.
Justice Dimgba adjourned hearing of the motions till July 27.
It will be recalled that Melaye had shortly after INEC declared its readiness to kick-start his recall, filed legal action to abort the process.
Among other reliefs, the embattled lawmaker, applied for an order of injunction restraining INEC from commencing or further continuing or completing the process of his recall.
He prayed the court to make an order stopping INEC from acting on the petition submitted to it.
The plaintiff equally begged the high court to stop the electoral body from conducting any referendum predicated on the fictitious petition allegedly submitted to it by his purported constituents on the basis of the fundamentally and legally flawed petition.
He specifically urged the court to determine whether by provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the Constitution, he is entitled to a fair hearing before the process of his recall as envisaged by the provisions of Section 69 of the Constitution can be triggered.
To determine whether the petition presented to the defendant is in compliance with the requirements of the constitution, same being heavily tainted with political malice, bad motive, personal vendetta and bad faith, which were initiated by top politicians in Kogi State, who wield enormous power over his Senatorial constituency.
The commission lawyer, Mr. Sulayman Ibrahim, queried the legal propriety of the restraining order that Justice John Tsoho of the high court issued against it on July 6.
Justice Tsoho had ordered all the parties involved in the recall process to maintain their status quo until September 29 when the court will hear an originating summon Melaye filed to challenge his planned removal from the Senate.
The interim order followed an ex-parte motion Melaye lodged before the court through his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN.
In a 16-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion on notice, INEC, contended that the court lacked the powers to stop it from initiating the recall process it said was one of its time bound duty under section 69 of the 1999 constitution, as amended.
Besides, the commission alleged that Melaye misrepresented and suppressed material facts and thereby misled the judge to issue an interim order of injunction in his favour.
INEC told the court that it had on June 21, received a petition dated June 19, seeking Melaye’s recall from the Senate.
It said upon the receipt of the petition, it accordingly published a time table and schedule of activities for the recall process, in line with provisions of the law.
INEC decried that the court had by its restraining order, a copy of which it said was served on it on July 10, tied its hands.
Similarly, INEC, through its second motion, prayed the court to order for accelerated hearing of the substantive suit.
It also urged the court to okay that the matter be heard and determined during the ongoing court vacation.
Meanwhile, Melaye, yesterday, persuaded the vacation judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, to grant him seven days to respond to INEC.
Justice Dimgba adjourned hearing of the motions till July 27.
It will be recalled that Melaye had shortly after INEC declared its readiness to kick-start his recall, filed legal action to abort the process.
Among other reliefs, the embattled lawmaker, applied for an order of injunction restraining INEC from commencing or further continuing or completing the process of his recall.
He prayed the court to make an order stopping INEC from acting on the petition submitted to it.
The plaintiff equally begged the high court to stop the electoral body from conducting any referendum predicated on the fictitious petition allegedly submitted to it by his purported constituents on the basis of the fundamentally and legally flawed petition.
He specifically urged the court to determine whether by provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the Constitution, he is entitled to a fair hearing before the process of his recall as envisaged by the provisions of Section 69 of the Constitution can be triggered.
To determine whether the petition presented to the defendant is in compliance with the requirements of the constitution, same being heavily tainted with political malice, bad motive, personal vendetta and bad faith, which were initiated by top politicians in Kogi State, who wield enormous power over his Senatorial constituency.
Comments