Tonye Cole Campaign Blames Magnus Abe Group For APC’s Exclusion From Rivers Election


The Tonye Cole campaign organisation has blamed the Senator Magnus Abe faction for the exclusion of the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the governorship election in Rivers State.

A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt on January 7, 2019 had nullified the primaries performed by the 2 factions of the social gathering in Rivers State. The courtroom additionally restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from presenting Tonye Cole, Magnus Abe and different candidates of the APC within the 2019 governorship election within the state.










Cole’s faction acknowledged that Abe’s group mustn’t have approached the courtroom, having written a petition to the National Executive Committee of the social gathering. The group claimed that petition led to the social gathering’s exclusion from the 2019 elections within the state.

An announcement by the organisation learn: “Fortunately for the petitioners, the NEC of APC on the 18th of May granted their aid of cancellation of the congress on the fifth, 12th and 19th of May 2018 and was rescheduled to the 19th, 20th and 21st of May 2018. However, before the APC NEC could attain a choice on the petition, the petitioners had gone forward of the body to hunt for the similar reliefs on the Rivers State High Court.”

Cole’s group maintained that the social gathering had intervened and waived the requirement for congress, which was a part of the issues raised with all aspirants allowed to contest the congresses with out nomination forms.

According to the Tonye Cole organisation, the petitioners, of their hastiness to file a suit to the High Court, failed to exhaust the interior dispute decision process, making the suit incompetent from the second it was filed. It additionally added that within the originating processes of the suit within the courtroom, the petitioners didn’t set out the wrongful act of the social gathering that had warranted them to sue.

It maintained that the petitioners had, due to this fact, gone against the rule of the Supreme Court by undermining the method of redress of their social gathering.

“It is for the purpose that an individual doesn’t undermine the method of redress by an organisation to which he belongs by looking for similar treatment in courtroom once he has invoked the Remedial Authority of that organisation, that the Supreme Court set the rule and want for such a individual to exhaust the interior dispute mechanism of the social gathering, before approaching the courtroom,” the organisation added.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *