A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday, dismissed the suit seeking to challenge former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s eligibility to vie for the office of the president.
Delivering judgment, Justice Inyang Ekwo, dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff that instituted the case lacked the locus standi (legal right) to do so.
Justice Ekwo described the plaintiff as “busy body and meddlesome interloper.”
He held that the plaintiff, an Incorporated Trustees of Egalitarian Mission for Africa (EMA), acted contrary to its aims and objectives of registration at the Copperas Affairs Commission (CAC).
He said the action also violated the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2010.
“There are two questions that come up at this point to wit: How do the objectives of the plaintiff fit into the provision of Section 590 of the CAMA?
“And how does the applicant’s claim to right to public interests’ litigation fit into the objects of a corporate body registered under Part C of CAMA?,” he asked.
The judge held that none of the objects stated in Section 590 (1) of the CAMA gave any group registered thereunder the authority to engage in what it called “public interest litigation” to the extent that the plaintiff could initiate this type of suit.
“There is no provision under Part C of the CAMA that makes provision for the registration of anybody or groups of persons whose true intent is to assume the function of any arms or agencies of government or interfere in their businesses.
“Issue of Nigerian citizenship pursued by the plaintiff is part of the statutory functions of the Federal Ministry of Interior.
“What the plaintiff is doing by initiating this suit is to take over the function of the Federal Ministry of Interior,” he ruled.
Justice Ekwo said the proper thing for the plaintiff (if it is a law-abiding corporate citizen) to have done was to register whatever complaint it has about the citizenship of the 1st defendant (Atiku) with the Federal Ministry of Interior.
He said filing the suit was tantamount to an attempt to usurp the function of statutory agency of government and it must be stopped forthwith.
“I am sure that if the plaintiff had indicated to the Corporate Affairs Commission (hereinafter referred to as CAC) that the real object in its mind apart from the one stated in paragraph 7 of its further and better affidavit is to engage in ‘public interest litigation’ of the nature of this suit, the CAC would have refused to register it under Part C of the CAMA.
“The CAC has no business under the CAMA registering corporate entities whose aim is to be professional litigants roaming around the corridor of the courts looking for who to sue.
“If the applicant is now telling this court that its locus standi to engage in ‘public interest litigation’ is by virtue of its registration under S. 590 (1) of the CAMA, then its registration was a camouflage and a fraud and ought to be revoked,” he held.
The judge said that whatever action taken by EMA outside its original objectives of establishment would be unlawful.
He said that the main function of an association registered under Part C of the CAMA was to take care and protect the interest of its registered members.
“Where the law upon which a litigant relies does not authorise an act, such litigant has no locus standi to embark on that action.
“Again, where the law does not authorise the doing of an action, any person who does such act is acting illegally.
“At this point I need to tell the plaintiff to go home and find something befitting of its objectives to do and stop engaging in activities that are alien to its registered objects and the provisions of the CAMA 2010.
“I therefore hold that by the provision of Part C of the CAMA, particularly S. 590 (1) thereof the CAMA pursuant to which the plaintiff obtained registration and by which it underpins this venture, it cannot initiate this action.
“In other words, the plaintiff lacks requisite locus standi to bring this action against the defendants.
“I therefore resolve the issue of locus standi against the plaintiff and in favour of the 1st and 5th defendants.
“It is the law that where a plaintiff has been adjudged to lack locus standi, it does not matter whether that action is premature, speculative and academic, or discloses no reasonable cause of action against the respondents, or the originating process is defective and incompetent, or suit is not justiciable, or the suit is abuse of court process,” he held.
The judge then made an order striking out the suit for lack of locus standi of the applicant.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that a group, EMA, sued Atiku, PDP, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
The EMA is challenging Atiku’s eligibility to contest for presidency on the grounds that he was not a Nigerian citizen by birth.
The group asked the court to hold, among others, that considering the provisions of Sections 25(1) &(2) and 131(a) of the constitution and the circumstances surrounding the former vice president’s birth, he cannot contest for the top office.
NAN also reports that the Adamawa State Government, through its Attorney-General (AG), had on July 27, 2021 sought an order of the court to be joined in the suit.
The court, in the motion dated April 26 and filed June 24, granted the prayer of the AG of Adamawa to be joined in the case as 5th defendant.
The Adamawa government had told the court that Atiku was eligible to vie for the office of the president.
It said Atiku, against whom the suit was primarily directed, is a citizen of Nigeria from Adamawa who had been elected as a governor of the state in 1999 and served as the vice president of the country between 1999 to 2007.
It stated that the suit threatened the right of not just the ex-vice president to contest the office of the president “but that of the citizens of Nigeria, of Adamawa origin covering 12 out of the 21 Local Government Areas in the state.”(NAN)
