Court knocks INEC over Action Alliance crisis

…. dismisses Udeze’s joinder application

By Jude Opara with agency report

Justice Funmilola Demi-Ajayi of the Federal High Court, sitting in Osogbo, the capital of Osun State, has criticized the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), over the ongoing crisis in the Action Alliance, AA, party.
The judge made the criticism while ruling on an application filed by enneth Udeze, who sought to be joined in a lawsuit initiated by Adekunle Rufai Omoaje, the national chairman of the AA, against INEC.
Justice Demi-Ajayi stated that INEC is expected to act as an impartial referee without bias towards any political party.
The judge expressed concern that INEC has failed to maintain accurate records of its activities, which is creating difficulties for the court.
She noted that this failure on the part of INEC is contributing to the chaos within the Action Alliance and could lead to confusion in the court proceedings, as the commission did not provide the necessary records.
Justice Demi-Ajayi lamented the prolonged legal disputes within the party and emphasized that INEC, as the regulatory body overseeing political parties, has neglected its duty to furnish the court with the relevant details needed to resolve the issues.
The court dismissed Udeze’s application for joinder, stating that it lacked merit. Additionally, the court imposed a cost of N100,000 against Udeze.
Justice Demi-Ajayi asserted that the right to seek relief against the parties to be joined must be established by the plaintiff, who is already involved in the suit.
She indicated that Udeze failed to demonstrate any multiplicity of claims in his application that should have been presented to the court.
The judge insisted that it is the plaintiff’s prerogative to choose the defendants in the case and referred to those seeking joinder as “mere meddlesome interlopers.”
She further stated that the parties Udeze wanted to join were neither necessary nor essential to the suit and concluded that their inclusion would not substantiate the case. The court firmly stated, “There is no good reason to join the party seeking inclusion in the suit.”