Ahead of the July 24 council polls in Lagos State, the Federal High Court in the state has asked the Lagos State Independent Electoral Commission (LASIEC) not to conduct the election without including the Youth Party (YP).
In the Suit No. FHC/L/CS/625, the court presided over by Justice Akintayo Aluko, granted the order of injunction in the case filed by the YP
The party was represented by Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, S.A.N.
The Court ordered that: “INEC and LASIEC are restrained whether by themselves, their agents, privies, employees, officers, or anyone whosoever acting for them and on their behalf from conducting the forthcoming Lagos State Local Government elections scheduled for 24th July 2021 or any other elections whatsoever to the exclusion of the Applicant pending the determination of the Interlocutory Application, which has now been adjourned to Monday 19th July 2020.’
In essence, any election conducted with the exclusion of the Youth Party would be illegal, null, and void:,an exercise in futility, the court ruled.
The YP 5in a statement said that “INEC further resorted to illegal self-help by illegally de-registering Youth Party while both of them were before the Federal High Court over the issue.
INEC has taken the position of an immoral and biased electoral umpire.”
That statement further read that INEC is currently refusing to list the Party on its website as a registered Party or allow it to participate in any election even in the face of an Appeal Court judgment, which had not been set aside or stayed.
Honourable Justice I.E. Ekwo in his judgment had held that:“The Defendant is not above the law. No person or parties to an action is allowed to resort to self-help when an action is pending in Court”. The claim that the Defendant has the power pursuant to S. 225A (b) & (c) of the 1999 Constitution(as amended) to de-register a political party does not justify the action of the Defendant while this action is pending. The Defendant must understand that the constitution is not an author of confusion. I condemn the action of the Defendant as a wrong exercise of might. Therefore, the de-registration of the Plaintiff during the pendency of this action by the Defendant is illegal, null and void, and liable to be set aside. Consequently, I hereby make an order setting aside the de-registration of the Plaintiff.” (DailyTrust)