The Supreme Court has again adjourned hearing to April 16 in an appeal filed by Vice-President Atiku Abubakar seeking to quash the judgment of the Court of Appeal which held that the Independent National Electoral Commission has the power to disqualify him from contesting the April 21 presidential election.
The court was billed to hear the appeal today (Thursday) but the sudden declaration of today and Friday as public holidays forced it to adjourn till Monday.
Abubakar had filed an appeal after the Court of Appeal in Abuja had ruled that INEC had the power to disqualify candidates.
In the appeal, Abubakar argued that the decision of the Appeal Court that the provisions empowering INEC to disqualify candidates were not included in the constitution for the fun of it was wrong.
In his view, Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution did not give INEC the power to disqualify any candidate for election.
He further stated that the power confer on INEC to organise, undertake and supervise all elections to the offices of the President and Vice President and other elective posts under paragraph 15 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution did not vest power of disqualification of any candidate on INEC.
He said that only the National Assembly could give the power to disqualify any candidate to INEC and that the National Assembly had done that by enacting the Electoral Act, 2006 without vesting INEC with power to disqualify candidates.
He insisted that only the court has the power to disqualify candidates.
The notice of appeal stated, �The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that �Apart from this constitutional power, it is inherent in Section 32 particularly subsection (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act that the Appellant has a primary duty to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.�
According to him, �There was no inherent duty imposed on INEC by the provision of Section 32 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act, 2006 to comply with the Constitution of as regards disqualification of candidates for election.
�The provisions of Section 32 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act, 2006 imposed duty on every candidate for election to swear to an affidavit before a High Court indicating compliance with constitutional requirements.
�Non-compliance with the constitutional requirements by a candidate is sanctionable only by a Court of law.
�Sanctions which include fines against non-compliance with the constitutional requirement for election by a candidate can only be imposed by a court of law and not INEC.
�The Respondent (INEC�s) duty to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Constitution is regulated within the ambit of paragraph 15 (i) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution and Section 32 (4) and (5) of the Electoral Act, 2006.�
He asked the Supreme Court to allow the appeal and make an order setting aside the judgment of the Appeal Court.
He also asked the court grant the reliefs contained in the originating summons he filed at the Federal High Court.