Two lawyers, Adelanke Akinrata and Abayomi Ojo, engaged in verbal fisticuffs before the Federal High Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital, over the legal representation of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) in the suit challenging the qualifications of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa for the last November 16 governorship.

Akinrata, who was part of the lawyers that represented Aiyedatiwa in the suit filed by Hon Olugbenga Edema when the suit came for hearing on December 11, announced his appearance as Counsel to the NNPP, leading to a diatribe amongst lawyers in the court.

However, Ojo said Akinrata cannot represent the NNPP because he had earlier appeared for one of the defendants in the same case, and it would be unethical for a counsel to represent both plaintiffs and defendants in the same suit.

The candidate of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP), Hon Olugbenga Edema has asked the court’s order to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the nomination and the publication of the names 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.

However, when the case came up for hearing on December 11, 2024, the NNPP, through its National Legal Adviser, Mr Robert Hon, said the party did not authorize any suit against the candidature of Governor Aiyedatiwa and his Deputy, Dr Olaiyide Adelami. He asked the name of the party be withdrawn from the suit.

But Aiyedatiwa, Adelami, INEC, and APC, through their lawyers, Dr Remi Olatubora SAN, Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN, Chief Charles Edosomwan SAN, who represented INEC, asked the court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to file the suit.

In the preliminary objections which came up for a hearing on Monday, Akinrata asked the court to strike out the name of NNPP, who is the first plaintiff from the suit. He attached the letter from the Legal Adviser of the party and the affidavit deposed by the state Chairman of the party to the motion.

Akinrata said 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.

Edosomwan said he had seen the motion of Akinrata and was in support of it. He said he could not doubt the authenticity of the letter from the NNPP to strike out its name from the suit.

Similarly, Olatubora expressed his sympathy for the counsel to the second plaintiff (Edema) because the withdrawal of the party 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.

However, 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.

The Presiding Judge, Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke, fixed the ruling on whether the lawyer could appear for the NNPP and striking of the name from the suit challenging the nomination of Aiyedatiwa for the last November 16 governorship election.