Court dismisses suit seeking to sack Sokoto ADC leadership

By Ibrahim ​‌‌⁠‌‍⁠⁠‍​⁠‌‌‌​⁠‍‌​Shehu

A Federal High Court on Friday dismissed a suit challenging the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Sokoto State.

The plaintiff, Alhaji Faruq Umar, instituted the suit against the ADC Sokoto State chapter leadership, claiming that he was the lawful state chairman recognised by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

But Justice Mahmud Gama dismissed the suit for lack of merit, upholding the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate four claims against the party’s leadership.

The judge upheld the substantive arguments of the defendants, although he overruled their preliminary objection earlier raised.

He said the plaintiff failed to establish his four principal claims with sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged irregularities.
Consequently, the court dismissed the suit.

Reacting to the judgment, the lead counsel to the defendants, Mr Sulaiman Usman, SAN, described it as significant in advancing constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in two areas.

Usman said the first concerned the doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies.

According to him, where a statute or constitution provides an internal mechanism for resolving grievances or disputes, an aggrieved party is generally required to exhaust the prescribed procedure before approaching the court.

He said the court found that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the internal remedies provided under Articles 21 and 22 of the ADC Constitution.

Usman said the second area concerned the nullification of statutory provisions.

He explained that the plaintiff, in part of his first claim, sought the nullification of Subsection 5 of Section 83 and Subsection 6 of the Electoral Act.

The defendant’s counsel added that the court held that although it had the power to nullify statutory provisions, such a decision required sufficient legal grounds.

He said the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the challenged provisions affected his rights or violated rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

On his part, the lead counsel to the plaintiff, Dr Idris Bala-Ahmed commended the court, saying the parties must continue to appreciate the industry of the court.
(NAN)