The petition filed by Labour Party (LP) candidate for the Lagos state Central senatorial district in the election, Abiodun Dabiri, against the election’s victor, Senator Wasiu Eshinlokun-Sanni, was dismissed by the National and State House of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Lagos.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Ashua Ewah, the Tribunal dismissed the petition on the grounds that it lacked competence and that the matter at hand was pre-election-related.
Justices Mohammed Sambo and Abdulahi Ozegya are additional tribunal members.
The Independent National Election Commission (INEC), Eshinlokun-Sanni, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) are the petition’s respondents.
Dabiri and the Labour Party (LP) are the petitioners.
Read Also: African leaders work on response to Gabon military coup
The petitioners requested that the Lagos Central Senatorial District election held on Saturday, February 25, 2023, be declared invalid due to a violation of the Electoral Act in their appeal, which was submitted through their attorney, Ikechukwu Nwana.
They claimed that the election was unlawful because the first respondent (INEC) failed to include the symbol adopted by the second petitioner, LP, or other information pertaining to the second petitioner on the ballot papers used to conduct the poll.
Eshinlokun, the second respondent, filed two preliminary objections during the pre-trial hearing, asking for an order to throw out the petitioner’s reply that was filed on May 12 and dated May 13, 2023.
The first petitioner lacks locus standi to present the case because he is not a candidate in the Lagos Central Senatorial District election that will be place on February 25, 2023, according to the respondent’s arguments in support of his applications.
Shittu further stated that due to a violation of Section 133(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022, the initial petitioner was not authorized to present the petition.
“The petition is based on the sponsorship and nomination of candidates, which are pre-election matters and are therefore illegal and outside the purview of the Electoral Act of 2022.
The grounds for the second application, dated May 18, 2023, are that the petitioner’s reply was an attempt to expand the petition. contrary to the First Schedule’s articles 14(2)(a) and 16(1)(a) of the Electoral Act of 2022.
The learned silk claimed that the petitioners cannot enlarge or amend their petition by using their reply because of Paragraph 16(1(a).
