The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Appeal court

  • Appeal Court affirms Faleke as winner of 2015 poll

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, yesterday affirmed the 2015 election of Mr James Abiodun Faleke as the member representing Ikeja Federal Constituency I at the House of Representatives.

    The appellate court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed an appeal filed by Mr. Kunle Okunola challenging the legality of Faleke’s transfer of his voter’s card and data back to Lagos from Kogi State.

    The court also awarded costs against the appellant for the first and second respondents in the appeal – Faleke and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Okunola’s journey to the court followed INEC’s declaration of Faleke, of the All Progressives Congress (APC), as winner of the 2015 poll.

    He challenged Faleke’s victory and lost at the Elections Petition Tribunal and the Election Appeals Tribunal.

    Dissatisfied, the appellant took advantage of Faleke’s foray into Kogi State to contest the seat of deputy governor, to ask the Federal High Court for three reliefs, including a declaration that Faleke’s seat had become vacant and to compel INEC to declare him winner.

    According to him, Faleke’s nomination by the APC for the March 28, 2015 poll, and his subsequent nomination as deputy governorship candidate for the November 21, 2015 gubernatorial election of Kogi State, during his subsisting membership of the House of Representative as a member representing Ikeja Federal Constituency I, amounts to multiple nomination, hence unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

    He also sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining INEC from any further reversal or transfer of Faleke’s voting and membership data from Ekinrin-Ade Ward in Ijumu Local Government Area of Kogi State to the Ikeja Federal Constituency I of Lagos State.

    But the lower court dismissed the application as lacking in merit and a waste of resources and time of the court.

    It held that nothing prevented or stopped anyone from moving freely within the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Reacting to the victory, Faleke’s lead counsel, Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), expressed his satisfaction with the judgment delivered by their lordships.

    “It succinctly captured the position of the law. I am relieved that the unnecessary legal battle has come to a final end,” Oyewole added.

     

  • Alleged N7.65b fraud: Kalu challenges dismissal of ‘no-case’ submission at Appeal Court

    THE Appeal Court, Lagos Division, has fixed February 7, 2019, to hear an appeal by a former Abia State Governor, Dr. Orji Kalu, challenging the dismissal of his “no case” submission to a N7.65bn fraud charge.

    Kalu’s submission was dismissed by Justice Buba Ibrahim of a Federal High Court in Lagos on July 31, in a charge preferred against him and two others by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    The court will also on the same date hear separate appeals filed by Kalu’s co-accused, Udeh Jones Udeogu and Slok Nigeria Limited, in similar circumstances.

    The presiding appellate court judge, Justice Garuba Lawal, fixed the date after taking submissions of appellants’ lawyers, S. E. Elema (SAN), Solo Akuma (SAN) and K. C. Nwofo (SAN), regarding the transmission of record of appeal.

    The EFCC was represented at yesterday’s proceedings by Adebisi Adeniyi.

    Justice Idris on July 31, 2018, held that Kalu has explanations to make, particularly on certain documents tendered by the EFCC as exhibits in evidence against him.

    The judge said: “I am of the view that the defendants have some explanations to make in the light of the exhibits and the evidence so far led. Again, I will say no more. The no-case submission is dismissed.”

    Dissatisfied, Kalu through his lawyer, Chief Awa Kalu (SAN), filed a notice of appeal dated August 1, 2018, asking that the lower court’s verdict be overturned.

    In the notice of appeal, Kalu maintained that all the evidence supplied by the prosecution witnesses had no “nexus” with him, and as such, there was no way a prima facie case against him would have been established.

    The former governor contended that it would amount to “miscarriage of justice” to compel him to defend a matter in which no “prima facie” case has been established against him.

    In one of the grounds of the appeal, the former governor said the lower court erred in law when it held that he had a case to answer “notwithstanding the fact that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses neither had any nexus with him nor make out a prima facie case against the appellant.”

    On the particulars of the error, he maintained that none of the prosecution witnesses gave any evidence linking him with any of the charges.

    He added that there was no evidence that any of his co-accused acted at his behest or on his behalf.

    On ground two, Kalu contended that the lower court erred in law when it held that “Exhibits B1-B28, 34, J, L, N1-N15, P1-P34, T8 and U” linked him with the offences charged and thereby required him to make some explanations by way of entering into his defence.

    Four particulars of error that accompanied this ground are:

    “None of the documentary evidence and financial records were made by the appellant or had any bearing to the appellant.

    “The exhibits mentioned above did not show prima facie evidence of conspiracy or money laundering against the appellant.

    “The appellant cannot be expected to prove his innocence when there is no nexus between him and the evidence led by the prosecution.

    “The appellant will suffer gross miscarriage of justice to be compelled to defend a matter in which no prima facie case had been made out against him.”

    The former governor is consequently asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court delivered in respect of the case on July 31.

     

     

  • Appeal Court to deliver judgment in Dariye’s, Nyame’s appeals

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja will today deliver judgments in the appeals filed by ex-governors of Taraba and Plateau states, Jolly Nyame and Joshua Dariye.

    The court heard the appeal by Nyame on September 25, this year and heard that of Dariye on October 2, this year.

    Nyame was, on May 30 this year, convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment without an option of fine, by Justice Adebukola Banjoko of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Gudu, Abuja.

    Nyame was convicted on 27 out of the 41 counts charge, in which he was accused of diverting public funds estimated at N1.64 billion.

    He was prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Dariye was, on June 12 this year, convicted and sentenced to 14 years jail term by the same judge for diverting public funds to the tune of N1.126 billion.

    Dariye, who was governor of Plateau State from 1999 to 2007 and a current Senator, representing Plateau Central, was found guilty on 15 out of the 23 counts contained in the charge filed against him by the EFCC.

     

  • Supreme Court frowns at APC, Appeal Court handling of Rivers congresses

    •Says party’s action condemnable
    •Faults Appeal Court for tolerating APC’s ‘excesses’

    The Supreme Court criticised yesterday the All Progressives Congress (APC)  and the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division over their handling of the processes leading to the party’s May congresses held in Rivers State.

    A panel of five justices of the court held, in a judgment, that the APC acted in “condemnable, egregious and preposterous” manner by proceeding to conduct its  ward, local government and state congresses of May 19, 20 and 21, 2018, respectively, in Rivers State, in disregard of a pending court order restraining it from so acting.

    The panel headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), said the Appeal Court, Port-Harcourt engaged in “a sacrilegious exercise of discretion” by ignoring the doctrine of stare decisis in its June 21, 2018 judgment, given in favour of the APC, despite the party’s decision to conduct its congresses in Rivers State in breach of subsisting orders of the High Court of the state.

    The judgment was on an appeal by 23 APC members, including Ibrahim Umar, David Ndah, Prince Morris, Kudem Bale, and Otokim Jack, who were aggrieved by the outcome of APC’s congresses.

    Justice Centus Nweze, who read the lead judgment, upheld the appeal and set aside the June 21, 2018 order of the Court of Appeal, with which it stayed the execution of the May 11 and May 30 orders made by the High Court of Rivers State stopping the conduct of  the congresses.

    Justice. Nweze, after reviewing the handling of the case by the Port Harcourt division of the Appeal Court, said: “Regrettably, the lower court condoned the condemnatious, egregious and preposterous approach of the respondent herein (APC).”

    He said the Supreme Court will not support such unruly conduct as exhibited by the APC in Rivers State.

    Jusice Nweze added: “Well, this court (Supreme Court) has a duty to resist this attempt to achieve forensic victory through jiggery-pokery. True to its constitutional mandate, this court cannot lend its weight to this unhealthy approach.

    “Therefore, I have a duty to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I hereby enter an order setting aside the ruling of the lower court delivered on June 21, 2018.”

    Justice Nweze upheld the contention by the appellants that the Appeal Court ought not to have granted the order of stay of execution in favour of APC while the party was still in disobedience of the order of the High Court.

    Justice Nweze noted that on May 11, 2018, “not minding the invasion of the court by hoodlums, an invasion that was charaterised by the destruction of items of the court, the court was still able to deliver its ruling and issued an interlocutory injunctive orders restraining the respondents from conducting its congresses….

    “As if that was not enough, on May 19 and May 20, and May 21, respectively, in notwithstanding the pendency of the injuctive orders, the respondent (APC) went ahead to conduct the ward, local government and state congresses.

    “This defiance has prompted the high court’s order of mandatory injunction of May 30. The restraining order cancels state congresses of May 12, 19, 20 and 21.

    “Despite the subsisting orders of the court, orders of May 11 and 30, the respondent in the most impudent manner, beseiged the  Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Divison for an entreaty to favour it with an order of stay of proceedings and order of stay of execution.

    “The lower court sitting on both favoured the respondent, that is, the applicant before it, with an order staying the execution of the ‘order of injunction made by the High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt in the ruling delivered by Nwogu J, on Friday, May 11, 2018.’

    “The simple truth, therefore, is that, when the respondent applied for stay of execution before the lower court, it was in gross disobedience of the positive order of the trial court.

    “From all indications, notwithstanding this unfortunate development, the lower court still found it legitimate to favour the respondent with a positive order of stay of execution. This was wrong,” Justice Nweze said.

    He faulted the Apeal Court’s failure to abide by the doctrine of “stares decisis” and refusal to subject itself to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case – the Military Governor of Lagos State Vs Ojukwu. He said the Appeal Court, by its conduct, “embarked on a journey of self-immolation and the Japanese ‘harakiri’” a journey, Justice Nweze described as a sacrilegious judicial exercise of discretion.

    He said:  “Indeed, nothing could be a more sacrilegious judicial exercise of discretion than the lower court’s ill-advised embarkation on this ill-fated journey of self-immolation, or what the Japanese call the harakiri, that means suicide, all in an attempt to in an attempt to circumvent the authority of this court.”

    Justice Nweze described the decision of the Appeal Court to disregard the established precedent of the Supreme Court as gross insurbordination.

    He said: “This court (the Supreme Court) is the highest court  in Nigeria; its decisions bind every court, authority or person in Nigeria.

    “By the doctrine of stares decisis, the courts below are bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. The doctrine is a sine qua non for certainty in the practice and the application of law.

    “The refusal, therefore, by a judge of the court below to refuse to be bound by this court’s decision is gross insubordination.”

    Justice Nweze described the attempt by APC’s lawyer, Hakeem Afolabi (SAN), to distinguish the case from the Supreme Court’s decisions in  Military Governor of Lagos State vs. Ojukwu, and Odogu vs. Odogu, as superficially attractive, but feeble.

    He frowned at what he described as APC’s lawyer’s “advocacy style” in the case, and said lawyers must draw a distinction between their role and status as lawyers, and their political interests.

    The lawyer to the appellants, who are supporters of Senator Magnus Abe, Henry Bello, said the imperative of the Supreme Court’s judgment was “a warning to politicians to always be obedient to court orders ahead of 2019 elections”.

    Alleging exclusion, Ibrahim Umar, David Ndah, Prince Morris, Kudem Bale, Otokim Jack and others  had,  in May 2018 sued the APC and sought to stop its congresses.

    Justice Chiwendu Nwogu of the Port Harcourt Division of the High Court of Rivers State, on May 10, 2011, granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the APC from conducting the congresses.

    The party went ahead to conduct the congresses on May 19, 20 and 21.

    This prompted Justice Nwogu to nullify the congresses in his ruling of May 30.

    Dissatisfied with the May 30 ruling of the High Court, the APC proceeded to the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal, praying for an order of stay of execution of both the May 11 and May 30 orders of the High Court and an order of stay of proceedings before the said High Court.

    The Court of Appeal on June 21, 2018, granted the APC’s request, a development which prompted the plaintiffs in the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the order of stay of execution granted by the appeal court.

  • Appeal Court halts execution of arrest order on INEC Chair

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has ordered a stay of execution of the warrant of arrest issued against the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mahmoud Yakubu.

    Read Also:2019: INEC budget stuck as Senate won’t reconvene

    The order for stay of execution made on Monday by the court’s three-man panel, led by Justice Abdu Aboki, is to subsist pending the determination of an appeal filed by Yakubu and an application he filed along with it.

    The appeal is against an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, while the application challenges the propriety of the order for the INEC boss’ arrest.

     

    Details later…

  • Appeal Court quashes election sequence reorder verdict

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside the judgment by the Federal High Court, Abuja, which voided Section 25 in the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018, which sought to dictate the sequence of the next general elections.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja had, in a judgment on April 25, this year, upheld a suit by Accord Party, to the effect that the National Assembly attempted to usurp the exclusive power of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by seeking to dictate the sequence of elections.

    But, in a judgment yesterday on an appeal by the National Assembly, a five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by the court’s President, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, set aside the April 25 judgment.

    Justice Bulkachuwa, in the lead judgment, said the Federal High Court was without jurisdiction to hear the suit in the first place, because it (the suit) was premature.

    The court said the provision of a Bill could not be challenged in court until it becomes an Act and the lower court ought not to have assumed jurisdiction and proceeded to void a Bill that was still undergoing the legislative process of becoming a law.

    It said the High Court should have thrown out the suit for being “frivolous, premature, inchoate and non-justiciable.”

    The appellate court was also of the view that the plaintiff at the lower court, Accord Party (AP), lacked the locus standi to institute the suit, because the disputed provision of the Bill did not affect its (AP’s) rights or obligations as a political party.

    The court said the “general interest”, which is available to the public did not confer on AP the rights to challenge the provision of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018.

    It said the suit was a deliberate attempt “to padlock” the National Assembly and hinders it from carrying out its constitutional duties.

    The court agreed that Section 4(8) of the Constitution allows the Judiciary to review the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly and determine whether or not such powers were exercised constitutionally.

    It said such judicial review did not negate the principle of separation of powers enshrined in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution.

    The court noted that a Bill only becomes can Act of the National Assembly when it is signed by the President pursuant to Section 58 of the constitution.

    It further noted that the Constitution gave the President the right to withhold his signature to a Bill, which is then returned to the National Assembly for further legislative actions that could result in discarding the proposed law or an override of the President by a two-third majority vote by both chambers of the National Assembly.

    Justice Bulkachuwa, in the lead judgment, said: “A court of law has no jurisdiction to decide on a Bill still undergoing legislative process. Such decision becomes null and void since it is not yet a law or an Act of NASS.”

    She said where a court entertains a suit challenging the provision of a Bill, it would amount to such a court “unwittingly interfering with the doctrine of separation of powers.

    “The court cannot grant an injunction to restrain the legislature from performing its legislative duties. It should, however, be sounded clear that the court has the jurisdiction to strike down any law or Act of the NASS when found to be in contravention of any section of the constitution”.

    She noted that the suit by AP was “an action that was designed to obstruct the legislative powers of the National Assembly to make law”.

    Justice Bulkachuwa cautioned that a situation where suits are filed to challenge Bills that are still undergoing legislative process could disable the Legislature.

    She said AP failed to show how the proposed amended election sequence would affect its right as a political party and noted that INEC did not file a suit to challenge the purported infringement on or usurpation of its powers by the National Assembly.

    “The suit was an academic exercise that did not raise any live and genuine issue in controversy for determination. The suit is frivolous and clearly an abuse of court process.

    “I resolve the issue in favour of the appellant. The judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on April 25 is hereby nullified.

    “On the whole this appeal succeeds, it has merit. The judgement of the High Court is hereby set-aside.”

    The National Assembly has since deleted the disputed Section 25 from the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018, which it later submitted to the President.

  • Appeal Court reserves judgment in elections sequence dispute between Executive, Legislature

    •National Assembly insists on power to fix election dates

    THE Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in the appeal by the National Assembly against the April 25 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, voiding the Legislature’s amendment to the Electoral Act.

    The National Assembly had, in its amendment, inserted Section 25 in the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018, which sought to dictate the sequence of the next general election.

    President Muhammadu Buhari declined to assent to the Bill, in which the National Assembly recommended, among others, the conduct of legislative elections before the Presidential election.

    The debate about whether or not the National Assembly did not usurp the powers granted the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to fix the sequence of elections, which was ignited by Buhari’s refusal to assent to Bill, caused a political party, Accord Party, to approach the Federal High Court,  Abuja for a judicial pronouncement.

    In a judgment on April 25, Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja upheld the suit by the Accord Party, held that the National Assembly lacked the powers to dictate the sequence of election and voided the controversial Section 25 of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill 2018, a decision the National Assembly appealed.

    Arguing the appellant case yesterday, Joseph Daudu (SAN) contended that the National Assembly has the power to order the sequence of elections.

    He argued that the later decision by the National Assembly to expunge the contentious Section 25 from the original Bill did not defeat the appellant’s position that it was within its power to decide the sequence of elections.

    Daudu urged the court to disregard a letter written by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) informing parties in the case that the National Assembly has expunged the controversial Section 25 from the latter version of the Bill sent to President Buhari.

    He contended that the letter was merely sent for administrative purposes and as such did not form part of the case.

    Daudu further contended that the letter by the AGF, with the revised bill attached to it, would not render his client’s appeal academic.

    In his appellant’s brief, Daudu said: “The Court of Appeal has to decide whether or not a bill, which is not yet an Act, can be challenged in court. Our position is that it cannot be challenged.

    “The National Assembly is entitled to protect its independence because we are not sure that the new bill that was sent to the President will not be challenged through another originating summons.

    “In order not to allow this to keep re-occurring, this court has to make a pronouncement so that whoever is not satisfied can go to the Supreme Court.”

    Daudu added: “In other words, unlike under the original constitutional provisions, the 3rd respondent (INEC) no longer enjoys the freedom to fix the sequence for elections at will: such fixtures must be in accordance with the Electoral Act enacted by the appellant (National Assembly).

    “That is what the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill seeks to achieve, yet the 1st respondent (Accord Party) rushed to court to challenge the powers of the appellant to exercise its constitutional powers.”

    In his response, Accord Party’s lawyer Wole Olanipekun (SAN) urged the court to note the fact that the National Assembly had sent a fresh Bill, without “the offensive Section 25”.

    Olaniekun, who cited some Supreme Court decisions, contended that since Section 25 of the earlier amended Act, which formed the foundation of the judgment appealed against, has been expunged, the appeal was now academic.

    Relying on section 122(1) (b) of the Evidence Act, 2011, he insisted that the court was bound to take judicial notice of such factual developments.

    “When the law says the court shall take judicial notice, there must be a consequence,” Olanipekun said.

    Solicitor General of the Federation (SGF) Dayo Apata, who represented the AGF and lawyer to INEC, Femi Falana (SAN), also opposed the appeal on the grounds that the appeal had become academic in the light of the new development.

    Falana noted that the National Assembly did not dispute the fact that a new bill, which no longer contained the controversial provision, had been sent to the President.

    He added that in view of the new development, the National Assembly ought to withdraw their appeal having shifted position from the original issue that formed the foundation of the suit, which the lower court ruled upon.

    After listening to parties, a five-man panel of the court, headed by the Court of Appeal President, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, announced that a date for judgment would be communicated to parties later.

  • Ogun PDP crisis: Appeal Court awards N600,000 cost against party

    •Court upholds verdict in favour of Dayo-led Exco

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos has struck out an application by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking to relist its appeal challenging a lower court judgment that validated the Ogun State chapter’s executive, led by Adebayo Dayo, an engineer.

    It awarded N600,000 cost against the party, to be paid to former National Chairman, Alhaji Ali-Modu Sheriff, Prof Wale Oladapo and Dayo.

    Each of them is to be paid N200,000, the Appeal Court held.

    The Federal High Court in Lagos had ordered the PDP to recognise the Dayo-led executive in Ogun State on the premise that its tenure would expire in 2020.

    The party had appealed the judgment, recognising Dayo as the authentic chairman, but later withdrew the application through its lawyer, Godwill Mrakpor.

    The Appeal Court consequently dismissed the appeal.

    But, another PDP lawyer, Dr Yemi Oke, returned with another application to relist the case on the basis that the party’s faction, which briefed Mrakpor, led by Sheriff, then, was not the authentic national leadership.

    In a judgment delivered by Justice Jamilu Tukur, the Court of Appeal held that the faction that appointed Mrakpor “had the power to do so” when it did,+ by virtue of a Court of Appeal judgment recognising Sheriff.

    Besides, it said there was a lower court judgment recognising Mrakpor as PDP’s lawyer.

    Dismissing PDP’s appeal, Justice Tukur, in a judgment delivered on July 11, a copy of which was obtained yesterday, held that the appellant also failed to attach the lower court’s ruling that was appealed against.

    “From whatever angle I looked at the application, I find it to be unmeritorious and liable to be dismissed.

    “However, in view of my findings on the competence of the application for failure to exhibit the ruling of this court subject of this instant application, the proper order befitting this application is one striking it out.

    “It is hereby struck out. There shall be costs of N200,000 in favour of the first, fourth and fifth respondents (Dayo, Sheriff and Prof Oladapo),” the Court of Appeal held.

    The PDP in Ogun State had been embroiled in leadership tussle, leading to factions, one led by Sikirulai Ogundele.

    The lower court held that the tenure of the Dayo-led executive subsists until May 2020, based on a subsisting judgment by Justice Ibrahim Buba.

    The court had also nullified the congresses allegedly held in defiance to Justice Buba’s judgment and orders.

    The lower court also declared the appointment of Tunde Odanye and others as Ogun State PDP Caretaker Committee null and void, saying their appointment contradicted Justice Buba’s judgment that affirmed the Dayo-led exco.

  • Appeal Court dismisses Innoson’s objections against GTBank

    • Firm heads back to Supreme Court

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu at the weekend dismissed the preliminary objections brought by Chairman of Innoson Motors, Chief Innocent Chukwuma and the firm. Innoson, arguing through his counsel, Prof. McCarthy Mbadugha had at the last hearing of the matter on June 14 raised objections to a motion brought before the court by GTBank seeking to amend its notice of appeal before the court.

    In its ruling the court presided by Justice Ogunwumiju held it would be in serious error if it decides to wait and hear Innoson Motors’ preliminary objection.

    She said: “I see no reason to refuse the appellant’s (GTBank) request to amend its notice of appeal”.

    “Everyone in this judicial drama knows that the substantive appeal must be decided in this court and no matter how much time is wasted, the Supreme Court can only hear the substantive matter after it has been decided in this court.

    “Considering all the reasons and circumstances set out above, I hold that it is in the interest of justice that the appellants application be granted in terms of the following orders:

    “Leave is granted to the Appellant (GTBank) to raise new issues in this appeal,

    “Leave is granted to the Appellant (GTBank) to amend its notice of appeal in terms of the particulars and specifics highlighted in its supporting affidavit.”

    Reacting to the ruling, Chukwuma instructed his Counsel to immediately appeal it.

  • Appeal Court stays execution of order against Rivers delegates

    THE Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, yesterday ordered stay of execution on the order of the state High Court, which nullified the state ward, local government and state congresses of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The three-man Appeal Court panel headed by Justice Isaiah Akeju validated the party’s congresses and dismissed the stay of proceeding application by the party.

    APC ward, local government and state congresses were scheduled to hold in the state on May 11.

    However, the party members desirous of contesting various positions paid for nomination forms to enable them participate and contest positions in the congress. With their bank tellers, they went to party secretariat to obtain, fill and return their forms, but were allegedly denied the forms.

    The affected persons, their supporters and other aggrieved party members gathered at its secretariat to protest the denial, but were dispersed by policemen.

    Ibrahim Umar and 22 others challenged their unlawful exclusion and prayed for an injunction order to restrain the party from holding the congress without them, having paid for the forms.

    The court granted the order, but this was allegedly flouted by APC on the ground that they did not receive any court papers asking them not to hold the congresses.

    The party members, who went to court to protest their unlawful exclusion, returned to court  to complain of the “illegality of holding the congress in defiance of the court’s order”.  They urged the court to void the illegal exercise and the court did.

    Following the report, the court declared null and void the ward, LGA and state congresses that produced Amachree as state party chairman.

    The APC appealed the ruling and prayed the court to, among others, stay the execution of the order nullifying the ward, LGA and state congresses and its outcome and also to dismiss the suit before the high court.

    The Appeal Court yesterday granted a stay of execution application of the party, but threw away the application for stay of proceeding sought.

    The Appeal Court panel, including Justice Jumbo Offor and Justice S.B. Sanga, in its decision, urged parties in the matter to continue with suit.

    The appeal panel also addressed the issue of legal representation for APC, noting that it is only the national legal adviser that has the right to appoint legal representation in any case.