In a significant ruling on Friday, the Federal High Court in Abuja threw out a lawsuit challenging the appointment of 12 judges for the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

Presiding Judge Inyang Ekwo delivered the judgment, asserting that the plaintiff, Azubuike Oko, identified as a lawyer from Ebonyi, lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue the matter.

The court also upheld objections raised by Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, legal counsel representing key judicial figures, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, the National Judicial Council (NJC), and the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court, Hussein Baba-Yusuf.

According to a report, Oko, in the suit identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/205/2024, contested the absence of lawyers from his state among the recently appointed judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

He alleged systematic exclusion and marginalization of Ebonyi lawyers in the appointment process by figures including Baba-Yusuf, the NJC, and the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC).

Oko asserted that the FCT chief judge was responsible for compiling the list of eligible lawyers from certain states, which was then forwarded to the FJSC for recommendation to the NJC for presidential appointment as judges of the court.

According to Oko, the states from which the recent appointments were drawn include Bauchi, Bayelsa, Enugu, Imo, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Oyo, Plateau, Rivers, Taraba, and Zamfara.

He contended that Oyo and Kogi, which already had two serving judges in the FCT High Court, were granted additional slots to now have three judges each despite the absence of any serving judge from Ebonyi State in the High Court of the FCT.

In Friday’s judgment, Justice Ekwo emphasized that the plaintiff did not claim personal injury caused by the CJN, NJC, or the Chief Judge of the FCT, nor did he seek redress for any such injury.

He said that “the plaintiff only claimed that he is from Ebonyi, which had been routinely excluded and marginalised with respect to the appointment of judges of the High Court of FCT by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants (the CJN, NJC, and the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC).

“What the plaintiff needed to establish to demonstrate his locus standi is how the appointment being considered by the defendants has affected him as a person.

“This, he would have done, by showing that he applied to be considered by the defendants for appointment, but he was ‘routinely excluded and marginalised.’

“On the other hand, he would have established that he is acting for any person or persons from Ebonyi State who are qualified to be appointed and who have indeed applied to be considered for the said appointment but had been ‘routinely marginalised.’

“In other words, there is no averment that the plaintiff ever applied to be considered for the appointment in issue. Without this, I find that the plaintiff has failed to establish his locus standi to initiate this action.”

The judge also criticized Oko’s reliance on his ethnicity as a basis to establish his legal standing to bring forth the lawsuit.

“The fact that the plaintiff is from Ebonyi State does not still avail him of the locus to initiate this case because, in his view, Ebonyi State of Nigeria has been routinely excluded and marginalised with respect to the appointment of judges of the High Court of FCT by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants.

“Ebonyi State, for whose cause the plaintiff claims to undertake, is a legal entity established by the constitution with requisite corporate characteristics, including the capacity to sue and be sued for any wrong done to it by any person.

“Assuming that the plaintiff can sue on behalf of Ebonyi State of Nigeria, which according to him, has been routinely excluded and marginalised with respect to the appointment of judges of the High Court of FCT by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, the averment that would have established his locus beyond any conjecture would be that the case is in a representative capacity and that he has the consent and authority of Ebonyi State of Nigeria to file the case.

“It must be understood, at this point, that public interest litigation does not extend to suit purportedly filed on behalf of any person who has the capacity and wherewithal to seek remedy for any wrong done to his/her person, but does not deem it necessary to do so.

“I find that Ebonyi State has the requisite capacity to seek remedy for any wrong done to it.

“By this reason, the plaintiff is obviously meddling in the affairs of 1st, 2nd, and 4th defendants by taking up a cause of a state, who has not authorised him to do so.

“It is the law that the court, in ascertaining whether the plaintiff in an action has locus standi, pleadings, that is, the statement of caim, or the affidavit in support of the originating process, must disclose a cause of action vested in the plaintiff and the rights and obligations or interests of the plaintiff that have been violated.

“Now, as the law is, where a plaintiff has been adjudged to lack locus stand, it does not matter whether that action is premature, speculative, and academic, or discloses no reasonable cause of action against the defendant, or the originating process is defective and incompetent, or suit is not justiciable, or the suit is an abuse of court process.

“Lack of focus stand ordinarily means the plaintiff has no legal right or authority to cross the threshold of the court for the matter at hand.

“Once the court finds that the plaintiff lacks focus, then the case ends there. The court ceases to have jurisdiction to consider or decide any other issue in the suit, and this is the case here.

“It is the law that the claims must be struck out, and I am bound to follow the law. I therefore make an order striking out this action for lack of locus standi of the applicant,” Justice Ekwo declared