Adeyemi is insisting that the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and the guidelines of the APC were not duly followed during the election.
Adeyemi also claimed that the results announced by the APC which gave Ahmed Ododo the victory were fraudulent and invalid, arguing that the primary election was conducted in only 11 out of 239 wards in the state.
A Federal High Court in Abuja and the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal had however delivered judgments against him on the ground that the allegations of malpractices were not proved as required by law.
A displeased Adeyemi, however, appealed the judgment at the apex court.
At Thursday’s hearing of the appeal at the Supreme Court, Adeyemi lawyer’s Musibawu Adetunmbi, SAN, after adopting his briefs prayed the apex court to grant the reliefs sought by Adeyemi.
The lawyer argued that the primary election of April 14 was conducted in gross violation of section 84 of the Electoral Act, 2022.
He claimed that the election was not held in 228 wards and that the claim was supported by INEC’s field officers in their report on the primary election.
However, the APC represented by AbdulWahab Mohammed prayed the supreme court panel headed by Justice John Okoro to dismiss Adeyemi’s appeal on the ground that it is against the concurrent findings of fact by the court of appeal and the supreme court.
On its part, the Independent National Electoral Commission represented by Adeyemi Adeniyi SAN, after adopting his briefs told the court that the appeal was grossly incompetent and that the decision of the two lower courts should be affirmed because there was no allegation of perversion of justice in the decisions of the two lower courts.
Similarly, the third respondent, Usman Ahmed Ododo, through his counsel, Francis Ekpa, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has become academic, adding that the 180 days within which APC can conduct another primary election for nomination of a candidate has expired.
Justice Okoro after taking arguments from the parties fixed judgement on the matter for October 3.
