The Federal High Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital has struck out the name of New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) from the suit challenging the qualification of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa and his Deputy, Dr Olaiyide Adelami as candidates of All Progressives Congress (APC)

The Presiding Judge, Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke, in her ruling, approved the request of the NNPP and its lawyer to withdraw from the suit filed by the candidate of the party, Hon Olugbenga Edema against the candidature of Aiyedatiwa and Adelami as the candidates of the APC.

Edema had asked for the court’s order to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the nomination and the publication of the names of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and his deputy as candidates.

Edema, in the suit, asked the court to interpret the applicability of Section 15 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) over the nomination of the APC candidates.

The suit has Edema, and the NNPP as the plaintiffs. It also has INEC, APC, Aiyedatiwa, and Adelami as defendants.

But the NNPP, through its counsel, Mr Adelanke Akinrata, sought the leave of the court to strike out its name as a plaintiff in the suit for want of authority and for further or other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

Akinrata, in his deposition before the court, said NNPP was not consulted before the suit was filed, and it did not authorize the suit. He said the party had accepted the outcome of the election and congratulated Aiyedatiwa as the winner.

But Counsel to Hon Olugbenga Edema, who is the candidate of NNPP, Abayomi Ojo, at the last adjourned date, said Akinrata cannot appear for the party because he had earlier appeared for one of the defendants when the case came up for hearing.

Ojo said Akinrata had violated rules 3 and 29 of the lawyers’ conduct of the Federal High Court in pre-election matters. He said the lawyer has also violated rules 14, 15,17, 29, and 30 of the professional conduct of lawyers in trying to appear for both defendants and plaintiffs in the same matter.

Akinrata insisted that he has the authority of the NNPP at the state and national levels to withdraw the name of the party from the suit. He said it was on this premise that he filed an application for withdrawal dated January 9.

But lawyers to INEC, APC, Aiyedatiwa and Adelami; Charles
Edosomwan, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, and Dr Remi Olatubora said they were in support of the motion of Akinrata to strike out the name of NNPP from the suit.

Olatubora, in his contribution, expressed his sympathy for the counsel to the second plaintiff (Edema) because the withdrawal of the NNPP from the suit would render the suit null and void, as there cannot be a candidate without a party. He said Nigeria law did not support independent candidacy.

Olatubora said “The Counsel to the second plaintiff should deal with the disownment of suit. It is one risk in our jobs. It is on record that he was served with the motion with Adelanke dated January 9 and filed on 11. The Counsel was aware that the party has said it did not authorize the suit.”

All the counsel to the defendants, including Edosanwon, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Ayo Shadrack, and Olatubora to the defendants said they would not object to the striking out the name of NNPP from the suit filed by Edema.

In her ruling, Justice Adegoke said Akinrata had not violated the rule of engagement as a lawyer. She said there is no conflict of interest because both the second plaintiff and the defendants have a joint interest in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.

Justice Adegoke said the second plaintiff has the right to change to counsel of his choice, saying the right of the counsel was not at variance with his former clients.

Consequently, the judge said the appearance of Akinrata is regular. She said since the candidate of the NNPP and other parties did not file an objection to the withdrawal of NNPP as a party to the suit, the leave to strike out the name from the suit was granted.

She said Edema should make consequential adjustments to the suit within seven days and for the respondents to file a reply five days after the receipt of the adjustment.

She fixed March 10 for the hearing of the substantive suit.