Court Fines Ex-Presidential Candidate N40m for Filing ‘Frivolous’ Suit

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has fined a former presidential candidate, Ambrose Owuru, N40million for filing a ‘frivolous’ suit seeking to stop the inauguration of the President-elect, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, on May 29.

The Court ordered Owuru to pay the sum of N10million each to President Muhammadu Buhari, Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami; the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Tinubu, candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the election.

Justice Jamil Tukur, who read the lead judgment of the three-man panel of the court, held that Owuru embarked on a gross abuse of court process by filing a frivolous suit to provoke the respondents.

The Court of Appeal further held that Owuru’s grievances against the 2019 presidential election was not only strange but uncalled for, noting that they had been pursued up to Supreme Court and was dismissed for lack of merit.

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.