Don’t hold Kogi poll, lawyers tell INEC

A consortium of lawyers has advised the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) against going ahead with the proposed Kogi State governorship election’s supplementary poll.

The exercise has been slated for December 5 in 91 polling units.

But the lawyers, who were engaged by INEC, said the All Progressives Congress(APC) could not present a candidate to replace its deceased candidate, Prince Abubakar Audu.

They insisted that contrary to the position of APC leadership, the governorship ticket does not belong to the party.

They said the ticket, by the Supreme Court judgment  on CPC Ombugadu(2013) 18NWLR (part 1387)66, belong to the candidates of a party.

They said if INEC goes to court to seek interpretation on what appears novel, it will prolong the stalemate in Kogi State.

They also said any recourse to the application of the “Doctrine of Necessity” will impugn on Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

They asked INEC to countermand the November 20 governorship poll in Kogi State and conduct a fresh election in all the 21 Local Government Areas.

The lawyers, who serve as legal advisers to INEC, made their opinion known in a November 24 letter to the Secretary to the Electoral Commission.

They said their legal opinion followed a meeting they had with the Chairman of INEC, Prof. Mahmud Yakubu and his National Commissioners on November 23.

The affected lawyers are Adegboyega Awomolo(SAN); A. B. Mahmoud(SAN); Onyechi Ikpeazu(SAN); Hassan M. Liman(SAN) and Ahmed Raji(SAN).

The 10-page advice reads in part: “We are of the opinion that the best option in the circumstance is to countermand the election to the office of the Governor of Kogi State, call for a nomination of another governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress(APC) and schedule another date for election in all the 21 Local Government Areas.”

The lawyers warned INEC against going to court to seek any interpretation because the legal process might prolong the political stalemate in Kogi State.

The advice said: “In a normal situation, especially in a legal system which assures speedy disposal of matters, it may not be out of place for the commission to proceed to Court to seek clarification on what appears novel.

“However , proceeding along that course will no doubt attract several interest groups who may simply employ the system of incessant applications for joinder, not only to frustrate what may be a an attempt to attain a lofty objective by the commission, but defeat the course of democracy,

“There is a clear likelihood that such a case will proceed to the Supreme Court, which will