In her place, the Court declared Francis Ottah Agbo as the validly nominated candidate of the party in the Constituency; in a unanimous judgement delivered by a three-man panel on Thursday.
A Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has declared as "null" and "void", the nomination of Miss Aida Nath Ogwuche as the House of Representatives candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for Ado/Okpokwu/Ogbadibo Federal Constituency of Benue State.
In her place, the Court declared Francis Ottah Agbo as the validly nominated candidate of the party in the Constituency; in a unanimous judgement delivered by a three-man panel on Thursday.
The appellate court held that Miss Ogwuche, who was declared winner of the PDP primaries by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was still a staff member of the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) at the time of the election.
Agbo, who is the current member representing the Federal Constituency and Chairman of the House Committee on Narcotics and Drugs, came second in the disputed primary election in May 2022.
Consequently, the court ordered INEC to immediately withdraw the certificate of return issued to Miss Ogwuche and re-issue same to Agbo as the validly nominated candidate of the party for the Federal seat.
Justice B. I. Gafai who read the lead judgement said Ogwuche ought to have resigned her employment from the service before contesting in the primary election of the PDP.
"The decision of the lower court recognising the participation and election of the first respondent in the election is illegal and unlawful," the Judge said.
The panel relied on Section 66 (I) (f) of the 1999 Constitution to declare Ogwuche's election as unlawful and invalid.
The Federal High Court sitting in Makurdi had on November 11, 2022, declared Ogwuche as the duly elected candidate of the PDP for the Ado/Okpokwu/Ogbadibo Federal Constituency.
Agbo had approached the trial court for an order disqualifying Ogwuche's candidacy on the grounds that she did not resign her appointment before contesting the election.
In his suit, Agbo had prayed the court to disqualify Ogwuche on the grounds that she did not resign her employment with the FIRS 30 days before contesting, as stipulated by the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act as amended.
The appellant came second in the PDP primaries for the Ado/Okpokwu/ Ogbadibo Federal Constituency of Benue which was held on May 23, 2022, in Okpoga, Benue State.
He argued that his opponent only resigned her engagement with FIRS two days (May 25) after she won the party's primary election.
According to the aggrieved lawmaker, Ogwuche was also engaged by the Benue State Government as the Principal Special Assistant to the Governor till after she won the primaries.
The lawmaker in his appeal asked the appellate court to determine whether the trial Judge was right when he held that the primary election was not an election within the definition of that expression in the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act.
"Therefore, Ogwuche's qualification to contest the primary election could not be challenged at that stage, the issue being whether a person holding office in the public service as a Staff of FIRS, such as Ogwuche, must resign from office before contesting the primary election, which she failed to do on the ground that her qualification could only be challenged after the general election.
"Whether the trial Judge was right when he held that the appellant has no right whatsoever to challenge the decision of the PDP clearing Ogwuche to contest the primary election in spite of the fact that she was not qualified to contest.
"This is on the grounds of having failed to resign her appointment in the public service as a staff of the Federal Inland Revenue Service.
"Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held, by implication, that Ogwuche was not required to state her employment status in the expression of interest and nomination form.
"Also, that the appellant had failed to draw the attention of the court to any part of the forms requiring such information and to that extent failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on him by law.
"Whether the trial Judge was right when he held, by implication, that the concealment of information is different from deliberate giving of false information and therefore that Section 29 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act is inapplicable to the case of the appellant," the appellant sought.