Ex-Presidential Candidate Slammed N40m For Filing A Suit To Stop Tinubu’s Inauguration

Court-Appeal-Abuja-750x375-1
Spread the love

Ambrose Owuru, a former presidential candidate, was fined N40 million by the Court of Appeal in Abuja for launching a false lawsuit to prevent Bola Tinubu’s inauguration as President on May 29.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, Attorney General Abubakar Malami, and Owuru were each ordered by the court to receive N10 million from Owuru.

By initiating a bogus lawsuit in an effort to embarrass the respondents, Owuru engaged in a blatant abuse of the legal system, according to Justice Jamil Tukur, who delivered the lead judgment of the court’s three-person panel.

Justice Tukur said that the action of Owuru to resuscitate the case that died since 2019 at the Supreme Court, was aimed at making the lower courts to go on collision course with supremacy of the Apex Court.

Background
Owuru, a presidential candidate of the defunct political party, Hope Democratic Party (HDP) in the 2019 presidential election had prayed the Court of Appeal Abuja to prohibit Buhari, Malami and INEC from inaugurating the President-elect on May 29.

Owuru predicated his grouse against inauguration of Tinubu or anybody else as successor to Buhari on the ground that he is the constitutionally adjudged winner of the 2019 election and has not spent his tenure as required by law.

Among others, Owuru insisted that Buhari has been usurping his tenure of office since 2019 because the Supreme Court has not determined his petition filed in 2019 in which he challenged the purported declaration of Buhari as the election winner.

He also applied for another order directing and placing on notice that any form of handover inauguration, organized and Superintended by Buhari on May 29, 2023 outside the adjudged winner of the 2019 presidential election, subject of the pending appeal, remains as an “interim place holder” administration pending the hearing and determination of his substantive appeal on constitutional interpretation thereof.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp