FORMER governor of Delta State, Ifeanyi Okowa, has floored the senator representing Delta North in the National Assembly, Ned Nwoko, whose suit challenging his emergence as the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate for the district in next year’s general elections was dismissed by a Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice Mohammed Umar, on Monday, July 20, struck out Nwoko’s suit, marked FCT/ABJ/CS/1062/2026, with APC, Okowa and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) listed as defendants, for being fundamentally defective and incapable of being corrected through an amendment.
Nwoko, represented by his Counsel, Mike Nwoko, had sought to amend the court documents to show that the pre-election case had been filed personally by him, rather than through an attorney, but this was opposed by the defendants, arguing that the suit was incompetent from the moment it was instituted and could not be revived through an amendment.
In his ruling, Justice Umar said after examining the originating summons, it was found that the action had indeed been commenced by Nwoko through his purported attorney, adding that the form and content of the documents showed that the suit was instituted in a representative capacity.
Relying on Section 285 (14) of the Constitution and Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the presiding Judge held that the law clearly identified those entitled to institute pre-election cases, adding that “the provisions were clear, explicit and unambiguous in vesting the right to institute a pre-election action in an aspirant who participated in the relevant party primary.”
He stated that the right to challenge the conduct, outcome or validity of a political party’s primary election belonged exclusively to the affected aspirant, noting that it is a personal statutory right and not an ordinary civil claim that could be transferred, assigned or exercised through an agent.
The Judge agreed with the defendants that an aspirant dissatisfied with a primary election must personally approach the court in the manner prescribed by law, saying such a right could not be transferred to another person through a power of attorney.
Justice Umar said if the 1999 Constitution (as amended) or Electoral Act intended to permit an aspirant to institute a pre-election suit through an attorney or representative, the laws would have expressly provided for it, noting that neither Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution nor Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act extended the right to an aspirant’s agent, attorney or representative.
He also rejected Nwoko’s application to amend the originating summons, holding that an amendment could not revive a suit that was incurably defective from the date it was filed, adding that no amendment could “breathe life” into an originating process that was already a nullity.
Justice Umar said there must first be a competent and subsisting case before a court could exercise its discretion to permit an amendment, and where the originating process was void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction, an amendment could not operate retrospectively to create a valid action.
He consequently dismissed Nwoko’s application for leave to amend the originating summons, and struck out the substantive suit for want of jurisdiction, after finding that the process through which it was commenced was incompetent.
