The Federal High Court on Wednesday in Abuja upheld the election of Dickson Seriake as the governor of Bayelsa.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Adamu Bello held that Austin Ogionwo lacked the `locus standi’ to challenge Seriake’s nomination as the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2011 election.
“I have gone through all the arguments advanced by parties in this matter and found that the applicant did not contest the governorship primaries conducted on Nov. 19, 2011.
“In fact, the applicant admitted in his address that he did not contest the primaries from where Seriake emerged as PDP’s candidate.
“The applicant cannot lie against himself in the circumstance. The suit is hereby dismissed on ground of locus standi,’’ he said.
On Dec. 29, 2011, Ogionwo approached the court with an originating motion on notice pursuant to Sections 6 (6) and 272 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.
He further relied on Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 and Order 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009.
The applicant sought a declaration that the governorship primary election purportedly held on Nov. 19, 2011 for the purpose of selecting a gubernatorial candidate for Bayelsa was null and void.
Ogionwo argued that the primary was originally scheduled to hold in February 2011.
He sought an order to nullify the primary as the First respondent (PDP) failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the PDP Electoral guidelines for the party’s 2010 primary elections.
Ogionwo further sought an order restraining the PDP by itself, representatives, servants or agents from submitting the name of the second respondent (Seriake) to INEC as the gubernatorial candidate of the PDP for the election among others.
The applicant therefore submitted that he had indicated interest and was cleared to contest the primary election to be conducted by the PDP.
In their preliminary objections, both Mr Friday Nwosu and Mr Sylvester Emmanuel, counsel to Seriake and PDP respectively, urged the court to dismiss the suit.
They contended that the applicant was not qualified by the provisions of the law to institute the action.
According to them, the applicant did not contest the primary and therefore cannot benefit from any relief from the court.
They further submitted that the first respondent conducted the gubernatorial primary election, which the second respondent (Seriake) won and was successfully sponsored to contest the Feb. 11, 2012 election.
(NAN)