Court sets judgement date in suit challenging Donald Duke's PRP presidential candidacy

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday set 2 November to deliver judgement in a suit challenging the emergence of former Governor of Cross River State, Donald Duke, as presidential candidate of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) for the 2027 general elections.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date after parties to the suit adopted their processes in the case.

Abdullahi Muhammad represented the plaintiff, Noah Abdul appeared for Mr Duke and Azubuike Ogochukwu appeared for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

A presidential aspirant on the platform of the party, Yakubu Kingsley, had instituted the suit following the emergence of Duke as presidential candidate of PRP.

Mr Duke won the 25 May primary election of the PRP based on the results the party announced on 26 May.

Mr Kingsley sued the PRP, Mr Duke and INEC in the suit filed on 10 June.

He urged the court to declare that the 25 May primary election of the party was invalidated by over voting in states like Bauchi, Gombe and Kwara.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

He also sought a declaration that Mr Duke was ineligible to participate in the party’s primary election held on 25 May, as he was not a member of the PRP.

He sought a declaration that Mr Duke ought not to have been cleared for the presidential primary election contest, having not complied with the guidelines of the party to physically present for the screening at its national secretariat.

Mr Kingsley prayed the court for an order setting aside the results of the presidential primary election conducted in Bauchi, Gombe and Kwara due to overvoting.

He sought an order declaring him the presidential candidate of PRP for 2027 general elections, having complied with all the party’s guidelines and being a registered member of the party.

He also sought an order directing the commission not to recognise Duke as PRP’s presidential flagbearer or to delete his name from its database as the presidential candidate of the party.

The plaintiff further sought an order directing the electoral umpire to recognise him as PRP’s presidential candidate.

In the affidavit in support of the suit deposed to by Kingsley himself, the aggrieved aspirant said he is a registered member of PRP with membership card number: 2A8D8B20B2.

The plaintiff, who described himself as a “politician,” said he is of Auchi III Ward, Etsako West Local Government Area of Edo State, but presently in Abuja, FCT,.

He swore that Duke was not a dully member of PRP as of 4 May when the party’s membership register was submitted to INEC.

He said he validly purchased the party’s Expression of Interest Form and Nomination Form for the office of president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and paid a total sum of N20 million to the party.

Mr Duke and PRP, in a preliminary objection jointly filed on 23 June by their lawyer, Noah Abdul, challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

Citing seven grounds why their application should be granted, Abdul argued that Kingsley’s suit, as constituted, is purportedly a pre-election matter within the meaning of Section 285(14)(a) of the Nigerian constitution.

The lawyer submitted thay by Section 285(9) of the constitution, every pre-election matter ought to have been filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of.

According to him, the cause of action in this suit arose on 26 May 2026, being the day the result of the 1st defendant’s presidential primary election was declared.

He, however, said that the instant suit was filed on11 June, 17 days after the accrual of the cause of action.

“The instant suit was filed outside the mandatory 14-days period stipulated by Section 285(9) of the constitution, and therefore statute-barred.

“The 14-days period under Section 285(9) is jurisdictional and cannot be extended or enlarged by the court or waived by parties,” he said.

Mr Abdul argued that issues relating to political party membership is a matter strictly within the domestic affairs of a political party.

He said the court has no jurisdiction to determine who the members of a political party are.

“It is not a justiciable question,” he said.

On its part, INEC said its statutory functions is to promote knowledge of sound democratic election processes and monitor the operations of political parties, including their primaries.

The commission said its officers who monitored the PRP primary election neither participated in the accreditation of delegates, the voting process, the collation of votes, nor the declaration of the winner of the primary election.

It said the responsibilities for conducting, collating and declaring the outcome of the primary election rested solely on the PRP officials.

According to INEC, the officials of the 3rd defendant merely observed the conduct of the exercise in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

The electoral umpire said it was therefore not in a position to include or exclude the result of any ward or local government area.

Besides, it said the declaration of the winner of the primary election was made exclusively by the electoral committee appointed by the party.

INEC said it could only act upon the name of a candidate validly submitted to it by the political party in accordance with the Electoral Act.

READ ALSO: Court orders Nigerian Army to reinstate 70 court-martial convicted soldiers pardoned by Buhari

It said until a competent court makes an order affecting the nomination of a candidate, it is bound to discharge its statutory duties strictly in accordance with the constitution and the Electoral Act.

The commission said it had no personal interest whatsoever in who emerges as the candidate of PRP and had remained completely neutral throughout the nomination process.

“The third defendant remains a neutral arbiter in the primary election.

“The third defendant is bound to accept the returned candidate of any election that is fair, free and credible as the winner of the election,” it said.

The commission, therefore, said its primary concern is the integrity of the process.