Leonard Nzenwa had approached a Federal High Court where he filed an action to challenge the matter bordering on the leadership of the party which has been decided and put to rest by the appellate court.
Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court Abuja has fixed December 5, 2022, for judgment in the fresh suit challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed human rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, as substantive National Chairman of African Action Congress (AAC).
Leonard Nzenwa had approached a Federal High Court where he filed an action to challenge the matter bordering on the leadership of the party which has been decided and put to rest by the appellate court.
An Appeal Court sitting in Abuja on June 2, 2022, affirmed Sowore as the substantive chairman of the party.
The court held that a 2019 judgment delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court which sacked Sowore as the party’s chairman was out of the court’s jurisdiction, adding that it was an internal affair. The appellate court also ruled that Justice Ekwo’s judgment violated Sowore’s right to a fair hearing.
Nzenwa in the suit is seeking an order of the court declaring him as validly appointed acting chairman of the party and also the substantive chairman of the party.
He is also seeking an order of the court directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), who is the 2nd defendant in the suit, to accept and recognise his “candidates” for the 2023 general elections.
In an attempt to mislead the court, Leonard through his lawyer, Soji Toki, disguised the suit in a way to make it look like a pre-election matter but failed to cite or make reference to any section of the Electoral Act or the Nigerian Constitution which INEC has breached in all the processes filed.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Wednesday, the National Legal Adviser to the party, Inibehe Effiong, in his submission said they have filed an amended preliminary objection dated July 29, 2022, and filed on August 3, 2022, along with a counter affidavit in opposition to the originating summons.
He argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit, adding that it is not a pre-election matter as has been wrongly portrayed by the plaintiff.
Inibehe described the suit as an abuse of the court process and urged the court not to dissipate energy on the matter that has been already decided by the appellate court.
He told the court that no candidate was disqualified by the INEC to warrant the action brought before the court just as he asked the plaintiff to disclose the names of the candidates and the positions they contested for.
"An attempt has been made unsuccessfully to convince your Lordship that this is a pre-election matter, but we submit that when your Lordship examines the processes filed, reliefs sought, the real issues and your Lordship juxtapose them with Section 285 subsection 14 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, your Lordship will be left with one conclusion that this is not a pre-election matter, because what is the pre-election matter is not a question of argument by the counsel," Inibehe argued.
He urged the court to carefully scrutinise the nine reliefs sought and dismissed the substantive suit with punitive cost.
On his part, counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the matter would have been an internal affair of the party if INEC had not allegedly acted contrary to the Constitution by attempting to choose candidates and leaders for a political party. This argument was however countered by Inibehe who insisted that the claims against INEC were baseless and not supported by facts or law.
After the presiding judge listened to the arguments of both parties, he adjourned the matter to December 5, 2022, for both ruling on the preliminary objection and judgment on the substantive suit.