Beni Lar has pledged to take back the seat that the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, which is based in Jos, the capital of the Plateau state, declared unlawful.
Lar, who had previously been elected to serve the Plateau state’s Langtang North/Langtang South Federal constituency, had her victory overturned on the grounds that she had not been duly nominated.
Lar expressed confidence that the ruling will be overturned, calling the decision to overturn her election as absurd.
I think the judiciary will be exonerated of this blatant misuse of the law, she stated.
The tribunal upturned my victory while maintaining the petitioner’s allegation that my nomination and candidature were improperly sponsored by my party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Thus, a number of questions clamour for solutions.
“The answer is yes, as demonstrated by the productive congresses held and the successful executive elections held in 2021 at PDP headquarters under the auspices of the National Working Committee.
“In accordance with compliance, INEC issued the corresponding certificate of compliance.In the case of Augustine Timkuk v. PDP, the federal High Court in Jos upheld these same congresses in a decision by Hon. Justice D. V. Agishi validating the State Executive of the Party as duly elected. The Court of Appeal in Jos unanimously upheld this same decision in favour of the PDP.
Therefore, there has never been any question about the PDP’s organisational structure in the plateau state. Furthermore, the Petitioners’ (APC) decision to even base the strength of their petition on the PDP’s internal organisational structure—which belongs solely to the PDP—is an uncommon and egregious act of interfering.
“This view has been further established by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions. The Lokpobiri v. APC & ors. case is extremely informative. This is presuming that there is any basis to contest my candidature at the primary, but it is not a concession.
“Therefore, His Lordship Justice Mohammed Tukur’s judgement is a severe deviation from the law and an anomaly. It is an obvious instance of a miscarriage of justice and abuse of the legal precedent-setting process. It is meaningless and ought to be rejected on all counts.
It is very absurd that His Lordship’s decision on the identical matter is in stark contrast to that of Panel 2’s equivalent. Same matter, same parties, same state, but various Coordinate court rulings jurisdiction. This is unimaginable.”
