Patience Ndidi Key, a presidential aspirant, has urged a Federal High Court, Abuja, to nullify the June 5 primaries that produced Kola Abiola as the presidential candidate of the People’s Redemption Party (PRP).
Ndidi Key, in the originating summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1001/2022, also prayed for an order setting aside the declaration of Abiola as the winner of the primaries conducted across the country.
Kola is the son of late MKO Abiola, the acclaimed winner of the June 1993 presidential election.
The plaintiff had sued the party, Latifu Kolawole Abiola, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, respectively.
In the application dated and filed on June 28 by her lawyer, the frontline politician alleged that the June 5 presidential primary election was conducted in gross violations of the party’s guidelines, “the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and INEC’s guidelines in the nomination or sponsorship of the 2nd defendant (Abiola) as the candidate of the 1st defendant (PRP) in the forthcoming 2023 Presidential Election.”
She, therefore, asked the court for an order restraining Abiola from parading himself as the winner of the primaries.
The plaintiff, who prayed the court for an order declaring her as the valid winner of the party’s presidential primary election conducted on June 5, also sought an order directing the party to substitute Abiola’s name with hers and submit the same to INEC as PRP’s presidential candidate.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, counsel for the plaintiff, Ibrahim Audu, informed that he had been unable to serve the 2nd defendant (Abiola) with the amended originating summons.
NAN reports that though the lawyer to the PRP, Jully Anyata, was in court, no counsel appeared for Abiola and INEC.
Audu then told the court that he had a motion ex-parte dated Aug. 4 and filed Aug. 5, seeking substituted service of the amended originating summons on Abiola and an application seeking leave to amend their originating summons.
But Justice Ahmed Mohammed held that the amended application should be properly filed and served on the defendants in the suit.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter till Sept. 7 for further mention.