Section 84(12) Controversy: Court fixes hearing on PDP’s suit against Buhari, AGF others on May 24

An Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Monday adjourned the suit filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) against President Muhammadu Buhari and others to May 24.

Justice Iyang Ekwo gave the date to enable parties in the suit to address him on the effect of the Court of Appeal judgment which declared section 84(12) unconstitutional.

It would be recalled the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court in Umuahia which ordered the deletion of Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022.

PDP had brought an ex-parte application before the Federal High Court Abuja challenging a directive given to the National Assembly by the president to remove section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act,

Following that application, on March 7, Justice Ekwo restrained the President, the AGF and the senate president from tampering with the 2022 Electoral Act recently signed into law.

The PDP sought an order of the court restraining the National Assembly from effecting President Buhari’s request to remove section 84 (12) from the Electoral Act.

However, on March 18, Justice Evelyn Anyadike ordered the Attorney General of the Federation to delete the said section from the amended electoral act.

She made the order following a suit filed by Mr Edede at the Umuahia division of the Federal High Court.

Justice Anyadike held that the section was “unconstitutional, invalid, illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever and ought to be struck down as it cannot stand when it is in violation of the clear provisions of the Constitution.”

PDP thereby approached the appellate court seeking to overturn the decision of the Umuahia court as it was not satisfied with the judgment of the lower court.

The Appellate court in its decision held that section 84(12) was unconstitutional because it violated Section 42 (1)(a) of the constitution and denied a class of Nigerian citizens their right to participate in election.

The appellate court held that Mr Edede lacked the locus standi to have instituted the suit and did not establish any cause of action that warranted him taking the matter to court nor did he establish how he was affected by the said provision.

The court struck out the suit filed by  Edede at the Umuahia court.