The High Court sitting in Lokoja today being Thursday, 27th February, 2020 ruled that the Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP ) has no Candidate going into November 16th 2019 gubernatorial election as the primary election was declared inconclusive.
Recall that Abu Ibro, the son of former Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Ibrahim Ibro has earlier instituted legal action against the candidacy of Engr Musa Wada whom PDP featured in the said election saying that following the crisis on the eve of the primary election in which some votes were declared missing, he advanced that the missing votes were his votes and as such he should be declared winner of the primary and not Engr Musa Wada.
Contrarily to Ibro son’s prayer, the court has ruled that Non of the Candidate was qualified to contest for November, 2019 election as the election was marked with violence and inconclusive.
Developing reactions from political analysts have described Ibro’s son move as being a collaboration to win the judgement for Governor Yahaya Bello who is standing trial for rigging and manipulating the said election with Helicopters snatching boxes and shooting innocent Kogites.
With this development, the legal action instituted against Governor Yahaya Bello by PDP on account of manipulating November, 2019 elections with thuggery and compromised system has abruptly come to an end even as the trial is yet to commence.
However, this judgement can be upturn at the supreme court as investigation thus far from the judgement shows that the court delivered a judgement out of content that is, the court delivered a judgement outside what was prayed for by Abu Ibro.
Law usually is interpreted base on logic, judicial precedent and constitution, perhaps, there is no court in the land that reverses the right to amend case for litigant or deliver judgement outside what the litigant prayed for.
The question now is how can High court sitting in Lokoja deliver judgement outside what the litigant ( Abu Ibro ) did not pray for?
Ourworldgist would keep you posted as the case give birth to different interpretation at the supreme court.
