A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting at Bwari, on Wednesday, fixed July 3 to deliver judgment on a suit challenging the eligibility of former Minister of Mines and Solid Minerals, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, to participate in the July 14 governorship election in Ekiti State.
Justice Othman Musa reserved his judgment after parties in the matter argued and adopted their final briefs of argument.
The court had earlier ordered the service of hearing notices on both Fayemi and the All Progressives Congress, APC, who were listed as 1st and 2nd defendants, to enable them to respond to legal issues that were raised in the suit which was filed by African People’s Party, APP.
The government of Ekiti State was equally cited as the 3rd Defendant in the matter.
Specifically, APP, through its lawyer, Mr. Johnmary Jideobi, is praying the court to determine “Whether or not upon a calm reading of Section 182 (1) (i) of the 1999 Constitution as Amended and having regard to the indictment of the 1st Defendant by the Ekiti State Judicial Commission of Inquiry, the 1st Defendant is not Constitutionall
“Whether or not upon a sober reading of Section 182(1) (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, a political party [such as the 2nd Defendant herein] can validly sponsor a candidate [such as the 1st Defendant herein] constitutionall
Against the background of the answer(s) that may be given to the questions of law, the plaintiff, claims the following reliefs from the court, against the Defendants:
“A declaration that upon a calm reading of Section 182 (1) (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as Amended and having regard to the indictment of the 1st Defendant by the Ekiti State Judicial Commission of Inquiry, the 1st Defendant is Constitutionall
“A solemn declaration that upon a sober reading of Section 182(1) (i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, a political party [such as the 2nd Defendant herein] cannot validly sponsor a candidate [such as the 1st Defendant herein] constitutionall
As well as, “An order of this Honourable Court restraining the 2nd Defendant from either considering, screening, accepting and or sponsoring the 1st Defendant or holding him out as its governorship candidate in the forthcoming governorship election scheduled to be held in the Ekiti State of Nigeria on the 14th day of July 2018”.
While adopting their briefs o argument, APC and Fayemi, through their lawyer, Chief Rufus Balogun, challenged the competence of the suit, even as they urged the court to dismiss it for want of merit.
In a 28-paragraphed counter-affidav
According to APC, “The most worrisome aspect of the Report is the purported barring of Dr. Kayode Fayemi from holding public office for 10 years when the Ekiti State is not a court of law”.
On his part, Fayemi maintained that he was not accorded fair-hearing by the Justice Silas Bamidele Oyewole-led eight-man panel of Inquiry that indicted him over alleged embezzlement and contract fraud.
“I know as a fact that the incumbent Governor of Ekiti State, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose, acting pursuant to the resolution of the Ekiti State House of Assembly, constituted Commission of Inquiry to look into finances of Ekiti State between 2010 to 2014.
“I know as a fact that Dr. Kayode Fayemi, the 1st defendant, challenged the legality and the constitutionali
“I know as a fact that some of the members of the Commission are civil servants and the Chairman of the Commission a retired Acting Chief Judge has an axe to grind with the 1st defendant and was waiting for an opportunity to have his pound of flesh”.
Fayemi told the court that he had upon realising that he would not get fair-hearing, instituted an action to query the legality of the Commission of Inquiry.
“I know as a fact that it was the Tender Board of Ekiti State that awarded the contract and specifically the building contracts were handled by the Bureau of Infrastructure and Public Utilities which had been managed by the Ministry of Works and Transport.
“I know as a fact that there was no evidence that the contract sum for the Ultra-Modern Market was ever disbursed to any company or diverted by anybody.
“I know as a fact that the Commission of Inquiry merely invited Dr. Kayode Fayemi as a Witness to appear before them to give evidence on specific issues related to 852m UBE/SUBEB Loan claimed to be embezzled by Dr. Kayode Fayemi and now found to be withdrawn by the Bank itself When Governor Fayose threatened not to pay the Loan”, the deponent added.
