From Tony Osauzo, Benin
A Federal High Court in Benin, yesterday, adjourned ruling on who, between Olumide Osaigbovo Akpata, and Kenneth Imansuangbon, is the candidate of the Labour Party (LP) for the September 21 governorship election to July 19, 2024.
Justice Babatunde Quadri reserved judgement in the pre-election suit instituted by Imansuangbon after concluding hearing on the matter in which the plaintiff is challenging the conduct of the LP governorship primaries on February 23, 2024.
Imansuangbon had filed two separate suits at the Federal High Court in Benin and Abuja, challenging Akpata’s nomination on the ground that the LP did not follow the electoral guidelines in the primaries and that he (Olumide) did not fill and sign the indemnity form, among other grounds.
After two adjournments in the suit, the case eventually came up for hearing yesterday, where written addresses by counsel to the plaintiff and defendants were adopted.
Lead counsel to the plaintiff, A. A. Malik, prayed the court to dismiss the submission of Akpata’s counsel on the ground that the first defendant violated the Electoral Act, and the party’s constitution, which he said are critical elements of the electoral processes.
Besides, he contended that the plaintiff has disclosed reasonable cause of action on the matter and urged the court to throw away the submission of the first defendant, declare and return the plaintiff as the winner, or alternatively, void and nullify the primary election and order a fresh election.
Malik stated that the conduct of the LP primaries was marred with over voting, which runs contrary to the party guidelines and the constitution.
On his part, counsel to Akpata, Kadiri Asamah, said the argument and submission of plaintiff was baseless and could not be litigated upon by the court, adding that it was a pre-primary issue, and as such, should be dismissed by the court.
Asamah, while adopting all the arguments contained in his written address, urged the court to dismiss the written address of the plaintiff, adding that it was an abuse of court processes.