Senator Monday Okpebholo, candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the Saturday governorship election in Edo State has cried foul of a criminal summons against him that he said was intentionally fixed for September 20 (Friday), the eve of the election, as a ploy to prevent him from presenting himself as a candidate in the polls.
NewsDirect (NG) reports an FCT High Court sitting in Maitama on Thursday, however, granted leave for the judicial review of Magistrate Abubakar Mukhtar’s criminal summons against Senator Okpebholo. Justice O. C. Agbaza, who granted the motion ex-parte moved by Okpebholo’s lawyer, Adaze Emwanta, held that the reliefs sought succeeded on the whole.
The judge, in the ruling on the motion marked: M/12340/2024 on Wednesday and the certified true copy of the order made available to journalists on Thursday, adjourned the matter until October 28 for hearing. Mukhtar, the presiding magistrate at Wuse Zone 2, had, on September 12, summoned Okpebholo for allegedly making a false statement on his date of birth.
The APC candidate was asked to appear before the court at 12 noon tomorrow, Sept. 20, by Mukhtar. He was accused of claiming conflicting dates of birth in his nomination forms submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to contest the election. The case, with suit no CR/W22/816/2024 before the magistrate, was instituted by an indigene of Edo, Honesty Aginbatse.
Against this order, Okpebholo, through his lawyer, Emwanta, filed a suit before Justice Agbaza of FCT High Court. The applicant listed Mr Aginbatse and Mukhtar, who is Magistrate Grade 1 in the FCT, as 1st and 2nd respondents.
Exposed!! Popular Abuja doctor revealed how men can naturally and permanently cure poor erection, quick ejaculation, small and shameful manhood without side effects. Even if you are hypertensive or diabetic . Stop the use of hard drugs for sex!! It kills!
The motion, dated and filed on Sept. 17 sought two orders pursuant to Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); Orders 44 Rule 3 and 43 Rule 1 of FCT High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2018 anf under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The prayers included “an order granting the applicant leave to file an application for judicial review involving an Order of Certiorari against the order of the 2nd respondent; in issuing criminal summons against the applicant, upon the charge/request of the 1st respondent herein.
“An order granting leave for the applicant to file an application for judicial review involving an Order of Prohibition against the order of the 2nd respondent; in issuing criminal summons against the applicant, upon the charge/request of the 1st respondent herein.”
In the 11-ground of arguments filed by his lawyer, the APC candidate said the order issuing criminal summons against him over alleged date of birth forgery was made by Mukhtar without caution and due diligence.
He averred that the charge was contrived by Aginbatse as a ploy to scandalise his image ahead of the Saturday’s poll and to prevent him from presenting himself a d a candidate in the election. He said the allegations made on the face of the charge before the Magistrate Court sitting at Wuse Zone 2 presided over by Mukhtar had earlier been resolved at the registry of the Supreme Court by virtue of a Deed Pool and gazetted in the official gazette of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Aug. 1.
“On the 1st of August, 2024, the Deed of Regularisation of Personal particulars of Okpebholo Monday, the applicant herein was published on Page 272 No 131, Vol. 111 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette.
“A copy of the official gazette containing applicant’s Deed of Regularisation of personal particulars is attached to the affidavit of facts and marked “Exhibit AP 3,” he said.
However, Okpebholo said on Sept. 12 at about 5pm, his attention was drawn to a criminal summons against him and signed by the magistrate which was flying on the social meda.
He said he observed that the magistrate ordered the summons in respect of an allegation of making false statement concerning his date of birth for which he had already done a Deed of Regularisation.
Besides, he said the aforesaid document bearing his name as accused person was not served on him, but was immediately posted on the social media to scandalise his public image ahead of the gubernatorial polls.
Okpebholo said the hearing of the criminal summons was intentionally fixed on September 20 (Friday), the eve of the election, as a ploy to prevent him from presenting himself as a candidate in the polls.
“The applicant is now desirous of bringing an application for an Order of Certiorari and an Order of Prohibition against the acts of the respondents herein in publishing Exhibits AP 4A and AP 4B, when he has not been served as required by law, just to frustrate his bid to participate in the election being the leading candidate,” he said.
In another development, Justice Peter Lifu of a Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, reserved ruling on a motion on notice filed by the APC seeking to amend its originating summons in the suit against INEC, Asue Ighodalo and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Justice Lifu also reserved ruling on Ighodalo and PDP’s notice of preliminary objection seeking the dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
APC’s motion sought an order removing Ighodalo’s name from the suit, because the party sponsoring was already a party in the suit.
The APC’s lawyer, Andrew Emwanta, argued that the amendment was to remove irrelevant references and to meet the purpose of the suit, which is to seek the determination of INEC’s statutory powers to disqualify an erring political party under Section 84(13) of the Electoral Act, 2022, and in pursuance of the plaintiff’s right of action as guaranteed by Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
But, in separate preliminary objections adopted and argued by Ighodalo’s counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, and PDP’s lawyer, Bashir Folorunsho, they urged the court to strike out APC’s motion on notice.
After listening to the parties’ submissions, Justice Lifu reserved ruling on the matter and said a date would be communicated to the parties.
