INEC Tackles Judge over Melaye’s Recall

• Insists process must be concluded in 90 days

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has written
to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta,
asking him to ensure that the court does not obstruct the
commission in the performance of its statutory duties.

INEC, in the letter signed by its acting Chairman, Professor
Okechukwu Ibeanu, objected to the order granted by Justice John
Tsoho stopping the commission from proceeding with the recall of
Senator Dino Melaye, who represents Kogi West Senatorial District
in the Senate.

INEC said the order granted by the judge was aimed at
frustrating its constitutional duties, contending that it was in
violation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

The commission noted that despite the fact that the judge knew
that the recall process must be completed within 90 days, he
decided to adjourn Melaye’s suit to September 29, effectively
frustrating the process.

In the letter exclusively obtained by our reporter, the
commission said: “The conduct of referendum for recall is one of
the constitutional duties of the commission, as stipulated in
Sections 69 and 110 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and
Sections 2(c) and 116 of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended.

“Pursuant to the presentation of a petition for the recall of
Mr. Dino Melaye, to the chairman of the commission on the 21st
June, 2017 by petitioners alleging lack of confidence in the
senator, the commission in accordance with its constitutional
mandate issued a timetable and schedule of activities for the
recall of the senator.

“My Lord, the commission by virtue of the provisions of Section
69 of the constitution is mandated to conduct a referendum for
recall of the senator within 90 days from the date of receipt of
the petition.

“Section 57(10) of the Electoral Act, 2010, also stipulates that
courts are not empowered to stop the conduct of primaries or
general elections or processes thereof under the act, pending the
hearing and determination of a suit.

“The above order and adjournment of hearing of the motion on
notice to 29th September, 2017 have clogged the performance of the
commission’s constitutional duty having regard to the fact that the
period for the conduct of the referendum in question shall lapse on
18th September, 2017.

“The commission will highly appreciate the intervention of your
Lordship to ensure that courts do not grant orders capable of
hindering the commission from carrying out its constitutional
duties as required by the constitution.”

The commission attached copies of the order and the processes
filed by Melaye to the court to the CJ.

Justice Tsoho had on July 6 ordered the parties in the suit
filed by Melaye against INEC to maintain the “status quo as it
stands today, July 6, 2017 pending the determination of the
plaintiff’s motion on notice”.

He also ordered Melaye to file an undertaking to pay damages to
the INEC as would be assessed by the court if it “turns out that
this order ought not to have been made”.

Some aggrieved voters from Melaye’s senatorial district had
collected signatures and filed a petition to INEC for his recall,
citing lack of performance.

Not leaving anything to chance, the senator filed the case,
seeking among others, to nullify the petition submitted to
INEC.

In the originating summons he filed through his lawyer, Chief
Mike Ozekhome (SAN), the embattled lawmaker prayed the court to
declare that the petition presented to INEC for his recall was
illegal, unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, invalid, null and
void and of no effect in law.

He also prayed the court for a declaration that the petition
purportedly forwarded to INEC was invalid and of no effect, the
same being signed by fictitious, dead and non-existing persons in
his senatorial district, as well as for an order of injunction
restraining INEC from commencing or further continuing or
completing the process of his recall.

Melaye also asked the court to make an order stopping INEC from
acting on the petition submitted to it.

In the suit, which he filed pursuant to Sections 36, 68 and 69
of the 1999 Constitution and Order 3, Rule 6 of the FHC Civil
Procedure Rules 2009, Melaye begged the high court to stop the
electoral body from conducting any referendum predicated on the
fictitious petition allegedly submitted to it by his purported
constituents on the basis of the fundamentally and legally flawed
petition.

He specifically urged the court to determine whether by
provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the constitution, he is
entitled to a fair hearing before the process of his recall, as
envisaged by the provisions of Section 69 of the constitution can
be triggered.

To determine whether the petition presented to the defendant is
in compliance with the requirements of the constitution, same being
heavily tainted with political malice, bad motive, personal
vendetta and bad faith, which were initiated by top politicians in
Kogi State who wield enormous power over his senatorial
constituency.

Likewise, to determine whether the process of a recall as
provided for in Section 69 of the constitution can be initiated
against him when the number of registered and qualified voters in
the constituency who purportedly signed the petition was grossly
less than the number required in Section 69(a) of the
constitution.

• Insists process must be concluded in 90 days

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has written
to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta,
asking him to ensure that the court does not obstruct the
commission in the performance of its statutory duties.

INEC, in the letter signed by its acting Chairman, Professor
Okechukwu Ibeanu, objected to the order granted by Justice John
Tsoho stopping the commission from proceeding with the recall of
Senator Dino Melaye, who represents Kogi West Senatorial District
in the Senate.

INEC said the order granted by the judge was aimed at
frustrating its constitutional duties, contending that it was in
violation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

The commission noted that despite the fact that the judge knew
that the recall process must be completed within 90 days, he
decided to adjourn Melaye’s suit to September 29, effectively
frustrating the process.

In the letter exclusively obtained by our reporter, the
commission said: “The conduct of referendum for recall is one of
the constitutional duties of the commission, as stipulated in
Sections 69 and 110 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and
Sections 2(c) and 116 of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended.

“Pursuant to the presentation of a petition for the recall of
Mr. Dino Melaye, to the chairman of the commission on the 21st
June, 2017 by petitioners alleging lack of confidence in the
senator, the commission in accordance with its constitutional
mandate issued a timetable and schedule of activities for the
recall of the senator.

“My Lord, the commission by virtue of the provisions of Section
69 of the constitution is mandated to conduct a referendum for
recall of the senator within 90 days from the date of receipt of
the petition.

“Section 57(10) of the Electoral Act, 2010, also stipulates that
courts are not empowered to stop the conduct of primaries or
general elections or processes thereof under the act, pending the
hearing and determination of a suit.

“The above order and adjournment of hearing of the motion on
notice to 29th September, 2017 have clogged the performance of the
commission’s constitutional duty having regard to the fact that the
period for the conduct of the referendum in question shall lapse on
18th September, 2017.

“The commission will highly appreciate the intervention of your
Lordship to ensure that courts do not grant orders capable of
hindering the commission from carrying out its constitutional
duties as required by the constitution.”

The commission attached copies of the order and the processes
filed by Melaye to the court to the CJ.

Justice Tsoho had on July 6 ordered the parties in the suit
filed by Melaye against INEC to maintain the “status quo as it
stands today, July 6, 2017 pending the determination of the
plaintiff’s motion on notice”.

He also ordered Melaye to file an undertaking to pay damages to
the INEC as would be assessed by the court if it “turns out that
this order ought not to have been made”.

Some aggrieved voters from Melaye’s senatorial district had
collected signatures and filed a petition to INEC for his recall,
citing lack of performance.

Not leaving anything to chance, the senator filed the case,
seeking among others, to nullify the petition submitted to
INEC.

In the originating summons he filed through his lawyer, Chief
Mike Ozekhome (SAN), the embattled lawmaker prayed the court to
declare that the petition presented to INEC for his recall was
illegal, unlawful, wrongful, unconstitutional, invalid, null and
void and of no effect in law.

He also prayed the court for a declaration that the petition
purportedly forwarded to INEC was invalid and of no effect, the
same being signed by fictitious, dead and non-existing persons in
his senatorial district, as well as for an order of injunction
restraining INEC from commencing or further continuing or
completing the process of his recall.

Melaye also asked the court to make an order stopping INEC from
acting on the petition submitted to it.

In the suit, which he filed pursuant to Sections 36, 68 and 69
of the 1999 Constitution and Order 3, Rule 6 of the FHC Civil
Procedure Rules 2009, Melaye begged the high court to stop the
electoral body from conducting any referendum predicated on the
fictitious petition allegedly submitted to it by his purported
constituents on the basis of the fundamentally and legally flawed
petition.

He specifically urged the court to determine whether by
provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the constitution, he is
entitled to a fair hearing before the process of his recall, as
envisaged by the provisions of Section 69 of the constitution can
be triggered.

To determine whether the petition presented to the defendant is
in compliance with the requirements of the constitution, same being
heavily tainted with political malice, bad motive, personal
vendetta and bad faith, which were initiated by top politicians in
Kogi State who wield enormous power over his senatorial
constituency.

Likewise, to determine whether the process of a recall as
provided for in Section 69 of the constitution can be initiated
against him when the number of registered and qualified voters in
the constituency who purportedly signed the petition was grossly
less than the number required in Section 69(a) of the
constitution.