National Rescue Movement, NRM, Drags Buhari And Atiku To Court, Alleges That Both Spent Over Two Billion On Campaign

The National Rescue Movement, NRM, has dragged both Atiku of PDP and Buhari of APC to court over their alleged over spending during the just concluded general election, the case which was held at the Federal High Court, in Abuja, had NRM praying that the court disqualify both President Muhammadu Buhari, presidential candidate of APC and the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar over alleged excessive spending on campaigns.
According to NAN reports, Usman Ibrahim-Alhaji, the presidential candidate of the National Rescue Movement, NRM, dragged both presidential candidates to court, alleging that they both spent over N1 billion each on campaign expenses during the campaigns leading up to the presidential elections.

READ ALSO: Tribunal Orders Atiku To Serve Copies Of Legal Processes on Buhari And APC.

Ibrahim-Alhaji prayed the court to invoke Section 91(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 to nullify the participation of Buhari and Atiku in the February 23 presidential election for allegedly violating the Electoral Act of 2010. The plaintiff, through his counsel, Ezekiel Ofou, alleged that by spending over N1 billion each, Buhari and Atiku violated the electoral law and were liable to be removed as contestants in the election.

At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, Mr Ofou informed the court that he had served the processes on Buhari and Atiku through substituted means as was ordered by the court on March 5. He, however, informed the court that they were yet to respond, he also said that according to the law, they had up till 30 days within which to respond, so because they were served on March 22, they had until April 22 to respond, Mr Ofou thus prayed the court for an adjournment to enable the defendants file their responses.

The trial judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed agreed with the counsel and adjourned the matter until May 7 for further mention. Mohammed said that since the defendants were still within time to respond, it could not be adjourned for hearing, but rather for further mention.