By TAIYE AGBAJE

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday adjourned a suit seeking to void the emergence of former Gov. Donald Duke of Cross Rivers as presidential candidate of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) until June 29.

Justice Mohammed Umar adjourned the case after counsel to the plaintiff, Abdullahi Muhammad, prayed for an adjournment to enable them move a motion for substituted service of court processes on Duke.

When the case, which came up for the first time before Justice Umar was called, only Muhammad, the plaintiff lawyer, was in court.

The lawyer then told the court that though the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was duly served with the originating summons, they had not been able to serve the ex-govenor.

“We, therefore, pray my lord for a short adjournment in order to move a motion for a substituted service on the 2nd defendant (Duke),” he applied.

Justice Umar subsequently adjourned the matter until June 29 for mention and for moving a motion for substituted service of the court processes on Duke.

A PRP’s presidential aspirant, Dr Yakubu Kingsley, had sued the party, the former governor and INEC as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

Kingsley, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1234/2026 and filed by D.A. Sulyman, sought three questions for determination in the originating summons filed on June 10.

The plaintiff wants the court to determine whether Duke was dully returned as the presidential candidate of PRP in the May 25 primary election, in which its results was declared on the May 26, having not been a registered member of the party as at May 4, when the PRP’s membership register was submitted to INEC.

He alleged over voting in states like Bauchi, where the registered members of the 1st defendant in its membership database is 593 and the total votes cast was 760.

In Gombe State, he alleged that the registered member was 348 and the votes cast was 1,431 and in Kwara State, the registered members is 55 while the vote cast was 82 votes, will not call for the nullification of the said primary election.”

He, therefore, sought a declaration that the ex-govenor, not been a registered member of PRP, cannot participate in the party’s primary election held on May 25 where he was declared the winner on May 26.

He sought a declaration that Duke ought not to have been cleared for the presidential primary election contest, having not complied with the guidelines of the party to physically present for the screening at its national secretariat.

Kingsley, therefore, prayed the court for an order setting aside the results of the presidential election conducted in Bauchi, Gombe and Kwara respectively on the ground of over voting.

He sought an order declaring him as the presidential candidate of PRP for 2027 general elections, having complied with all the party’s guidelines and been a registered member of the party.

He also sought an order directing the commission not to recognise Duke as PRP’s presidential flagbearer or to delete his name from its database as the presidential candidate of the party.

The plaintiff further sought an order directing the electoral umpire to recognise him as PRP’s presidential candidate.

In the affidavit in support of the suit deposed to by Kingsley himself, the aggrieved aspirant said he is a registered member of PRP with membership card number: 2A8D8B20B2.

The plaintiff, who described himself as a “politician,” said he is of Auchi III Ward, Etsako West Local Government Area of Edo State, but presently in Abuja, FCT,.

He averred on oath that Duke was not a dully member of PRP as at May 4 when the membership register of the party was submitted to INEC.

He said he validly purchased the party’s Expression of Interest Form and Nomination Form for the office of president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and paid a total sum of N20 million to the party.

He stated that he duly completed all nomination requirements and was endorsed by the requisite number of registered members as required by the party’s guidelines.

“That I physically attended the presidential screening exercise conducted by the party between 15th and 19th May, 2026 at the National Secretariat of the 1st defendant in Abuja as stipulated in the Aspirants Checklist for Sereening, a copy of which is herewith attached and marked as Exhibit ‘BB.'””

He said he was duly screened and cleared by the party to contest the presidential primary election conducted on May 25.

According to him, to my utmost surprise, the name of the 2nd defendant (Duke) appeared as an aspirant despite the fact that he did not physically participate in the screening exercise together with other aspirants at the National Secretariat of the 1st defendant.

He said this was against INEC’s extant regulations and guidelines, mandating political parties to submit the names of their registered members at least 21 days before the conduct of the party’s primary.

Kingsley, there, challenged the electoral umpire to produce its membership register submitted to it as at May 4.

He alleged that several objections and complaints were raised by party’s members concerning the eligibility of Duke.

Besides, the aggrieved aspirant alleged that the presidential primary election was characterised by widespread irregularities and manipulation.

According to him, in several states, the votes returned exceeded the total number of eligible registered members contained in the party register.

The aggrieved aspirant attached the result sheet of the presidential primary poll to prove his allegation of over voting.

He also alleged that his agents and representatives reported instances where they were denied effective participation in the collation process.

“That I verily believe that the purported result declared in favour of 2nd defendant does not represent the lawful votes cast by eligible members of the party.

“.That when unlawful and inflated votes are excluded, I emerge as the aspirant who secured the highest lawful votes in the presidential primary election.

“That I depose to this affidavit in good faith believing the contents to be true and correct in accordance with the Oaths Act,” he said.(NAN)