The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Justice Okon Abang

  • Ondo: Appeal Court withholds judgment in Jegede’s appeal

    Ondo: Appeal Court withholds judgment in Jegede’s appeal

    …To await Supreme Court’s directive

     

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has withheld its judgment in the appeal filed by the substituted governorship candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Ondo State, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN).

    Jegede had appealed the decision of Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to substitute his name (Jegede’s) for Jimoh Ibrahim as the party’s candidate for the election scheduled for November 26.

    The Justice Ibrahim Saulawa led three-man special appeal panel, which heard the appeal marked: CA/A/551C/2016 and other appeals relating to the Ondo PDP dispute, had scheduled judgment for 12noon Friday (today) in the Jegede appeal.

    Parties and all in court were however surprised when, upon resumption of proceedings, Justice Saulawa said the judgement and all other issues would be suspended until the Supreme Court decides a motion for stay of proceedings pending before it.

    Justice Saulawa, who cited a fresh motion filed Thursday before the Supreme Court by nine individuals led by the factional Chairman of PDP in Ondo, Biyi Poroye challenging the refusal of the appeal panel to stay proceedings, said his panel will await the decision of the Supreme Court on the pending application for stay of proceedings.

    Jegede and all his supporters, who formed the majority of the court’s audience, were unhappy about the court’s pronouncement.

    ‎Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has fixed next Tuesday for the hearing of the motion for stay of proceedings filed by the nine respondents led by Poroye.

    They are by the motion, seeking the stay of further proceedings by the appeal ‎panel pending the determination by the Supreme Court, of an appeal by the Poroye group against the panel’s ruling granting leave to Jegede, Ahmed Makarfi and Ben Obi to appeal the June 29 judgement and October 14 ruling by Justice Abang.

  • Appeal Court reserves judgment in Jegede’s appeal against Ibrahim

    Appeal Court reserves judgment in Jegede’s appeal against Ibrahim

    A Special 3-man panel of the Court of Appeal constituted to hear the appeals on the dispute of governorship candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Ondo State has reserved judgment in the appeal by the substituted candidate of the party, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN).

    The panel, led by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa told parties Wednesday that they would be informed when the judgment was ready.

    Jegede appealed the October 14, 2016 ruling of Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja, directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to substitute Jegede with Jimoh Ibrahim as the candidate of the PDP in the forthcoming governorship election in Ondo State.

    Justice Saulawa’s announcement elicited complaint from the camp of the respondents comprising state’s executive of the PDP in the South West (loyal to the Ali Modu Sheriff leadership of the party), led by Biyi Poroye, Chairman, PDP, Ondo State.

    Their lawyer argued that Jegede’s lawyer was allowed to adopt the appellant’s brief where the respondents were yet to file their reqponsents’ brief as required and to allow the court hear from both sides.

    Respondents’ lawyer, Beluolisa Nwofor (SAN) had argued that the court could not hear the substantive appeal in view of the pending appeal at the Supreme Court.

    He told the Appeal Court panel that his clients have appealed its earlier ruling granting leave to Jegede to appeal and that they have also filed a motion for stay of proceedings before the Supreme Court.

    Nwofor, who tendered certified true copies of the record of appeal and motion for stay of proceedings, urged the court to abide by the long held tradition of deferring to a higher court once an appeal is entered and record of appeal compiled.

    He argued that since their appeal was entered at the Supreme Court and a motion for stay of proceedings also pending before the apex court, the appellate panel has lost jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal by Jegede.

    “We have asked this court to hands off and await the Supreme Court’s decision on our motion for stay of proceedings. This court has lost the jurisdiction to proceed with this appeal. It should await the decision of the Supreme Court.

    Appellant’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) faulted Nwofor’s argument and urged the court to proceed to hear his cleint’s appeal.

    He argued that, for his client, time was of the essence because by the new provision of the Electoral Act, a person, who did not participate in all process of an election cannot challenge its outcome.

    Justice Saulawa however overruled Nwofor, noting that the court had, on November 10, 2016 granted an accelerated hearing in the case, abridged the time within which parties are to file their processes and a departure from the rules.

    Shortly after the judge’s spoke, Olanipekun adopted his client’s appellant’s brief and urged the court to allow the appeal.

    Nwofor, who expressed surprise at the development, said his clients had been shot out. He said the court failed to abide by tradition where appeals are entered.

    As Justice Saulawa announced the reservation of judgment, supporters of Jimoh Ibrahim and Sheriff, who occupied a section of the court, began to murmur.

    Meanwhile the court has adjourned to 12noon today to enable Poroye and other respondents in the appeal by Senators Ahmed Makarfi and Ben Obi to file their respondents’ briefs.

    Makarfi and Obi are appealing the June 29 judgement of Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja recognising the Sheriff-led National Executive Council of the PDP as the party’s authentic leadership body.

    The court, in two separate rulings Wednesday, refused applications by Ibrahim to be made a party in both appeals.

     

  • Ondo: Court grants Jegede, Makarfi, Obi leave to appeal judgment

    Ondo: Court grants Jegede, Makarfi, Obi leave to appeal judgment

    …Refuses Sheriff’s, Ibrahim’s request to disband fresh panel

     

    Factional leaders of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Ahmed Makarfi and Ben Obi and the substituted governorship candidate of party in Ondo State, Eyitayo Jegede recorded major victory before the Court of Appeal in Abuja Thursday.

    The court, in two unanimous rulings by a three-man panel, upheld the applications by Makarfi, Obi (Chairman and Secretary of the PDP Caretaker Committee) and Jegede for leave to appeal against the June 29, 2016 judgment and October 14, 2016 ruling of Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Justice Abang had, in the judgment of June 29, recognised the Ali Modu Sheriff leadership of the PDP as the authentic body to take decisions for the party.

    In the October 14 post-judgment ruling, Justice Abang ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to accept the name of Jimoh Ibrahim (produced by the leadership of the party in Ondo, supported by the Sheriff faction in place of Jegede produced by the Markefi backed faction of the party in Ondo.

    Justice Ibrahim Saulawa (who led the panel) said in the lead ruling in the application by Jegede that he has satisfied the court that he was a necessary party to the case even when he was not a party at the trial court.

    Justice Saulawa held that under Order 7 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rule an interested party to a judgment, who was not a party at the trial court, is allowed to apply to the appellate court for leave to appeal if such an application had been rejected by the lower court.

    He noted that in this case, since the trial court had reject Jegede’s application for leave to appeal, he was right to have file similar application again before the Court of Appeal within the prescribed 15 days.

    As against the argument by lawyer to factional Chairman of PDP in Ondo State, Biyi Poroye and other members of his Executive, Beluolisa Nwofor (SAN) that the June 29 judgment was a consent one, the court held otherwise.

    The court held that since Jegede was not a party at the trial court, he could not have consented to the judgment. It noted that by the record of the court, INEC that was a party at the trial court, did not consent to the judgment.

    “I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds duly established by the applicant (Jegede) that he be given the opportunity to appeal the judgment.

    “The applicant has duly established that he is the person aggrieved by the decision of the court below, having won the primary of the party,” Justice Saulawa said.

    He granted that application, deemed the notice of appeal and record of proceedings already compiled by the Jegede as properly filed and compiled.

    The courts granted an order departing from its court’s rule and abridge the time within which parties could file their processes.

    It granted the appellant (Jegede) 24 hours within which to file his brief or argument and three days to the respondents to file respondent’s brief.

    The ruling delivered in the application by Jegede, was adopted in the similar applications by Makarfi and Obi.

    In an earlier ruling, the court refused an application by Poroye and others for the disbandment of the fresh panel set up to hear all the appeals on the dispute over the governorship candidate of PDP in Ondo.

    The court held that the decision to set up a special panel to promptly determine the appeals was within the administrative powers of the Court of Appeal President, which cannot be challenged by anyone in court.

    Other members of the panel: Justice Ignatius Igwe Agube and Ita Godwin Mbaba agreed with the lead decisions by Justice Saulawa.

     

  • Extradition: Court rejects Kashamu’s fresh application

    Extradition: Court rejects Kashamu’s fresh application

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, has directed, Senator Buruji Kashamu, to execute the two previous court judgments stopping the Federal Government from extraditing him to the United States.

    Kashamu, had in a fresh application, urged the court to prohibit the police and the Department of State Services (DSS) from arresting and extraditing him to the U.S to answer charges on drug-relates offences.

    The judge, Justice Okon Abang, declined the request, saying the senator, representing Ogun West in the Senate, did not need the order.

    Abang held that if Kashamu was sure that police and the DSS were taking steps to arrest and extradite him, he should execute the two earlier judgments obtained against the federal government.

    He said it was not necessary for the court to issue a fresh order against the defendants in the matter since the same court had delivered two judgments in his favour on the subject matter.

    “On this issue of the alleged plan by the respondent to abduct the applicant, I am aware that the applicant has various court judgments in his favour,” the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) quoted the judge as saying on Thursday.

    “If he is apprehensive, and is so sure of himself and his facts, he is at liberty to execute the various judgments.

    “The two judgments are still subsisting and therefore the applicant requires no court order against the respondents.”

  • PDP sues judges over leadership crisis

    PDP sues judges over leadership crisis

    The Ahmed Makarfi faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has sued the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court (FHC), Justice Ibrahim Auta and a judge of the court, Justice Okon Abang, over the leadership crisis rocking the party.

    The suit marked: 9V/2239/2016, filed before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, in the name of the PDP, seeks among others, the enforcement of the party’s right to fair hearing.

    The party, which blamed the defendants for the various conflicting decisions given in relation to the leadership crisis in the party, faulted Justice Abang’s assumption of jurisdiction on cases relating to the party’s crisis when a judge at the court’s Port Harcourt division was already hearing similar cases.

    The plaintiff is praying among others, for an order setting aside all the decisions and orders made so far by Justice Abang on the PDP leadership crisis.

    Justice Olukayode Adeniyi, who was to hear the case, on Tuesday, queried the rationale behind the suit filed for the PDP by Ken Njemanze (SAN).

    “I must express my reservation that this is not the kind of suit that should be filed in court. I do not know what this suit seeks to achieve,” the judge said.

     

  • Wike berates Police for being partisan

    Wike berates Police for being partisan

    • Calls on NBA to serve as the conscience of the nation

    The Governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Ezenwo Wike has berated the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) for being partisan and taking sides in an internal party squabble by deciding to execute an interim injunction on the PDP National Convention when there was a judgment directing the Police and the Department of State Services (DSS) to provide security for the August 17, PDP National Convention.

    The Governor made this known at the opening ceremony of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Annual General Conference on Sunday Night, observing that there was no reason for the police to have resolved to execute the interim order of Justice Okon Abang in a suit where it was not a party, neither was it served with the order delivered late in the evening of Tuesday, 16th August, 2016.

    He described the action of the police as scandalous and undemocratic, saying that there is no explanation for what they did to the PDP because they were allegedly obeying orders from above.

    In a statement signed by Simeon Nwakaudu, Special Assistant to the Rivers State Governor on Electronic Media, the governor said:  “The Honorable Justice Okon Abang sat until about 1700 hours, took a short break, and delivered his controversial judgment at about 1800 hours. At which time the Convention venue had already been sealed by a large contingent of security personnel personally led by the Rivers State Commissioner of Police (CP) and the State Director of the Department of State Security (SDDSS).  The question is: when was the enrolled order prepared, vetted, signed, served and or transmitted to the Police in Port Harcourt for enforcement in a matter in which they were never sued or joined as parties?

    “And because a PDP convention must be prevented from holding, the lives and property of Rivers people became inconsequential in the reckoning of the CP and the SDDSS.

    “That was why in their desperation to enforce an insidious “order from above” they threw caution to the wind, and against every sense of rationality, mobilized the entire fleet of Armored Personnel Carriers and other operational vehicles from other parts of the State to the Port Harcourt Civic Centre just to prevent a harmless party meeting from holding, and in the process left an entire State literally exposed and vulnerable to the mercy of criminals. For us, there is nothing surprising about the treacherous actions of the CP, the SDDSS and their collaborators.”

    Governor Wike said that as far as Rivers State is concerned, the Federal authorities only consider partisan interests when issues of security are on the table. He said that as such, Federal Security Agencies regularly transfer senior security officers with partisan consideration in mind.

    According to Governor Wike, “in Rivers State, politics and partisan considerations now determine the posting of senior security officers to the State. In particular, having signed-in onto the unholy conspiracy to undermine our administration, the Security High Command in Abuja prefers to make deployments that are intended to shore up the political fortunes of a degraded political opposition at the expense of providing effective security cover to the State and its people.”

  • Appeal Court reverses Ikpeazu’s sack

    Appeal Court reverses Ikpeazu’s sack

    ……Voids Certificate of Return issued Ogah

     

    The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reversed the sack of Abia State Governor, Victor Okezie Ikpeazu by a Federal High Court in Abuja.

    Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja had in two judgments on June 27 this year, on suits by Sampson Ogah and Obasi Ekeagbala, voided Ikpeazu’s election on the ground that he made false claims in his tax documents submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    In six separate judgments Thursday, a five-man bench of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju set aside the two judgments by Justice Abang on the grounds that his findings and conclusions were wrong.

    The appellate court reversed all the orders he made, including Ikpeazu’s sack and the issuance of Certificate of Return to Ogah by INEC.

  • PDP convention: Court warns INEC against participation

    PDP convention: Court warns INEC against participation

    …..Reaffirms orders stopping PDP convention

    …..Orders IGP to enforce orders made

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja Tuesday ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not to participate in the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) convention slated for Port-Harcourt Wednesday by monitoring it.

    Justice Okon Abang, in a ruling Tuesday, reaffirmed his interim orders made on Monday, directing parties to suspend the scheduled national convention of the PDP.

    He converted them to interlocutory injunction to last until the determination of the substantive suit filed by Ali Modu Shariff and other members of his leadership of the party.

    The ruling was on a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction argued Tuesday by plaintiffs’ lawyer, Adeniyi Akintola (SAN).

    Justice who faulted the decision of the Port Harcourt Division of the Federal High Court to assume jurisdiction on the case relating to the PDP convention, directed that his order be accompanied with Form 48 (Notice of disobedience of court order) and served on the INEC Chairman and Secretary.

    He said failure by INEC or any of the defendants to comply with his order “will attract disciplinary action” provided “the plaintiffs ‎know what to do.”

    The judge also directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to among others, ensure the enforcement of the court orders.

    The judge held that the motion was not opposed as the respondents, including members of Ahmed Makarfi-led ‎caretaker committee of the party, failed to file a counter-affidavit opposing the motion.

    He said the Makarfi-led caretaker committee members, who were only on Tuesday joined as the third to the ninth respondents adopted strategy of not filing counter-affidavit but filed other processes that were not placed in the court file.

    Justice Abang said the request for an adjournment by lawyers to Makarfi and others – Yunus Ustaz (SAN) and Ferdinand Orbih (SAN) – after the plaintiffs’ counsel, Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), had moved his motion was an afterthought.

    “Having asked the court to adjourn to the next day to enable him filed response to the plaintiffs’ processes, the lawyer to the 3rd to 9the defendants (Makarfi and eight other members of his committee) have waived their right to be served within seven days,” the judge said.

    He noted that, rather than file a counter-affidavit to the plaintiffs’ motion for injunction; defendants’ lawyers chose to file other processes that were only referred by the lawyer, but not placed in the court’s file.

    “The issue of asking for an adjournment is an afterthought. Therefore, a counsel will sink or float with the decision taken by him in the discharge of his professional duties to his client,” the judge said.

    Noting that lawyer to the PDP, Olagoke Fakule (SAN) and that of INEC, Alhassan Umar, did not oppose the motion for injunction, the judge said: “In any case, the plaintiffs’ application ‎is not opposed by any of the parties.

    “The law must take its course. The facts placed before this court are unchallenged and uncontroverted by the respondents when they had the opportunity to do so. The facts deposed to by the plaintiffs are credible.

    “The plaintiffs’ application is not opposed by any of the parties. I so hold. The defendants have not filed counter-affidavit to the application. They have opportunity of filing counter-affidavit and they failed to do so. The law must take its course.

    “It is my view that the facts placed before the court are unchallenged and uncontroverted by the defendants when they had the opportunity to do so. They had opportunity to file counter-affidavit, they failed to do so; they filed preliminary objection.

    “Their objection was not in the court’s file. I rely on the authority of the Supreme Court. The facts deposed to by the plaintiffs are credible and are deserving to grant the application in the overall interest of justice.

    “The plaintiffs’ application therefore succeeds and is accordingly granted as prayed in line with the reliefs endorsed on the motion paper dated July 20, 2016 and I make the following orders:

    “An order of interlocutory injunction is hereby made restraining the defendants (the nine of them), their servants, agents, howsoever named from conducting the national convention of PDP and from supervising or monitoring same under any guise and for electing any national officer of the (second) defendant (PDP), and for recognising same in any manner whatsoever pending the determination of the substantive suit.

    “An order of interlocutory injunction is hereby made restraining the PDP from presenting anybody and from sponsoring anybody for election into its offices and holding national convention, conference whatever name for the purpose of electing national officers of the second defendant pending the determination of this suit.

    “Prayer 3 is refused. The orders of Buba J. and the order Idris J. are subsisting. You can take step to enforce the order. Prayer 3 is hereby refused and accordingly struck out. I so hold.

    “An order of interlocutory injunction is hereby made restraining the INEC from monitoring the national convention of PDP scheduled for Port Harcourt on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 or any other day and from accepting, publishing or recognising, conference or convention howsoever named being planned by second defendant.

    “The Inspector-General of Police shall enforce the order until all applications are disposed of.

    “The plaintiffs shall endorse Form 48 and serve and all the defendants, especially INEC to accompany the order.

    “Learned counsel for INEC shall inform the Chairman of the INEC of the court’s decision and failure to comply with the order of the court will attract disciplinary action against any party in disobedience provided the plaintiffs know what to do,” the judge said

    Justice Abang blamed the judge in the Port Harcourt division of the Federal High Court for the conflicting orders that had so far been issued by him and from Port Harcourt on the issue of PDP convention.

    “The Federal High Court, having regard to Section 249(1) of the Constitution, is one court, but with several divisions, for administrative convenience to bring administration of justice nearer to the people.

    “The issue of whether or not the PDP should hold its convention was raised by the plaintiffs in this suit. The case was assigned by the Chief Judge to this court on the 4th of July. Assigning a case to a judge is a constitutional duty of the Chief Judge of this court and no person can question it because it is an administrative decision.

    “The issue of whether the PDP should hold its convention, having been assigned to this court, no other division of the Federal High Court ought to preside over the matter in the same manner, so as to avoid conflicting decisions,” he said.

    The judge noted that in any civilised country, like Nigeria where there is the Court of Appeal to correct any error that may arise from the proceedings of this court, parties ought to have availed themselves such opportunity rather than going before another division of the Federal High Court with the same suit.

    Justice Abang said, although he lacked the power to review the decision of the other court, except it was a nullity, the judge in the other division ought to have drawn the court’s Chief Judge’s attention to the new case filed before it on the same issue already before the Abuja division.

    He said the unenviable situation today would have been avoided if the judge in the Port-Harcourt division of the court had refused to assume jurisdiction over a case filed on August 9 after the Abuja division was already handling similar case filed in July.

    Justice Abang, who queried the jurisdiction of the Port-Harcourt court over the matter, where parties like PDP and INEC have their headquarters in Abuja, said his court was not struggling jurisdiction with the Port Harcourt division, but that it is concerned about the conflicting decisions.

    “The attitude of my brother judge in Port-Harcourt is what the Supreme Court condemned in the case of NIBS v. Union Bank reported in part 2004 NWLR.

    “Therefore, the Port-Harcourt division of the Federal High Court cannot make an order neutralising the order made by this court.

    “This is so because a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot make an order that has the effect of overruling the order made by this court on the 28th of July restraining parties from taking any steps in relation to the subject matter of this suit. Any person that disobeys the court will have himself to blame. Nobody should bring himself with the direct confrontation of this court,” Justice Abang said.

    The judge expressed discomfort over media report about the comments reportedly made by Prince Dayo Adeyeye (who is the 8th defendant in the case and a member of the Makarfi committee) castigating the court and judge for the interim orders made on August 15.

    The judge said, but for the fact that the court is patient, it would have moved against Adeyeye for assuming judicial powers to query court’s decision and make disparaging comments about the court.

    Further hearing in the substantive suit has been adjourned September 7.

    Among prominent PDP members in court Tuesday was businessman, Jimoh Ibrahim.

     

  • Updated: Court orders PDP to suspend national convention

    Updated: Court orders PDP to suspend national convention

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) from proceeding with its planned national convention slated for Port-Harcourt, Rivers State on August 17.

    Justice Okon Abang, in a ruling Monday, granted an interim order directing parties in a suit before his court to suspend all plans and actions in relation to the convention pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice for injunction filed by plaintiffs in the case.

    The case was filed by Ali Modu Sheriff and other members of the National Working Committee of the PDP, which he heads.

    The substantive suit was filed before the court’s vacation and assigned by the Chief Judge to Justice Abang’s court for hearing.

    The plaintiffs’ motion for injunction dated July 20, 2016 is seeking various reliefs, principal among which is an order restraining INEC from monitoring the national convention of PDP to be held on August 17 in Port Harcourt.

    The motion was slated for hearing on August 28, 2016 after the plaintiffs obtained the court’s leave for the motion on notice to be heard during its long vacation.

    The motion was not heard on July 28 as scheduled, on account of a motion for joinder filed by Senator Ahmed Makarfi and six other members of his Executive Committee.

    The motion was, again not heard yesterday owing to the various rulings of the court on some application, including the joinder application by Makarfi and others.

    In one of the ruling, the judge granted the prayer by Makarfi and others and joined them as defendants in the suit.

    Those joined were Makarfi, Ben Obi, Odion Ugbesia, Abdul Ningi,  Kabiru Usman, Dayo Adeyeye and Alhaja Aisha Aliyu. They were joined as 3rd to 9th defendants.

    After his clients were joined as parties in the suit, lawyer to Makarfi and others, Yunus Usman (SAN) applied for adjournment to enable him study the plaintiff’s motion for injunction, which was served on him in court yesterday by plaintiffs’ lawyer, Adeniyi Akintola (SAN).

    Adeniyi, who did not object to Usman’s application for adjournment, prayed the court to make an interim preservation order to restrain parties from taking steps to dissipate the res (substance of the case).

    Akintola, who drew the court’s attention to an order ex-parte obtained last week by a party in the case, Senator Ben Obi, from the Port-Harcourt division of the court, noted that the respondents have the habit of flouting court orders.

    He said the order obtained by Obi from the Port-Harcourt court was intended to frustrate proceedings before the Abuja court.

    Akintola said the court will be rendered helpless if no positive order was made and an adjournment was granted as sought by the defendants’ lawyer.

    Ruling, the judge said it was shocking that, despite being aware of the plaintiffs’ motion for injunction, and also being aware that a ruling was to be delivered in his application to be made a party in the case before the Abuja court, Senator Obi, on August 9, obtained an ex-parte injunction from the Port-Harcourt division of the court, directing INEC to monitor the convention and security agencies to provide security.

    “The action of Senator Ben Obi is unlawful and unfortunate. A court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot make an order that will neutralise the proceedings in another court of coordinate jurisdiction. The Port-Harcourt division of this court cannot make an order to neutralise proceedings in this court.

    “Any court of coordinate jurisdiction that takes delight in making ex-parte order in frustrating another court of coordinating jurisdiction’s proceedings is entirely on its own,” the judge said.

    He said he would have adjourned proceedings on the plaintiffs’ motion for injunction without making any preservative order, as requested by lawyer to Makarfi and others, Yunus Usman (SAN), but for an urgent and compelling need for such order in view of the action by Senator Obi and the need to take care of conflicting interests of parties before the court.

    “Senator Ben Obi, with the greatest respect to him, is a senior and responsible citizen of this country. He cannot undermine the authority of this court. He ought to have waited for the court to deliver ruling in his application, which has now been delivered in his favour.

    “Senator Ben Obi cannot slap the court in the face and expect the same court to grant him an adjournment in this matter without making any interim preservatory order.

    “Democracy is anchored on the rule of law, not on the rule of self-help; not on the rule of might. Democracy is not anchored on the whims and caprices of any person, no matter hi position in the society. If we are to sustain this democracy, nobody should be above the law.

    “Senator Ben Obi, with the greatest respect to him, cannot treat this court with disdain and levity. What is the need for rushing to another court for an order, when a court is already seised of your application? This is unfortunate and unfair,” the judge said.

    Relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lagos State v. Ojukwu1986 1 NWLR pt 18 at page 621, he noted that on no account must a party to a suit resort to self- help.

    He said where a party takes the laws into his/her hands; the court must invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction to curb the excesses of the recalcitrant party, in exercise of the court’s power for the maintenance of its dignity and integrity.

    “In the light of this, lawyers and politicians must ensure that the hard earned democracy is protected to avoid anarchy. If there is a breakdown of law and order, it is the masses of this country that will suffer. The politicians and senior lawyers will quickly find their way out of the country. The court is here to ensure that there is no anarchy.

    “Therefore, in the exercise of my disciplinary jurisdiction, where a party has taken the law into its hands, and in line with the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lagos State and Ojukwu, in the interest of justice and competing interests of parties, an order is hereby made in the interim, suspending PDP convention slated for the 17th of August 2016 in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, pending when the plaintiff’s motion on notice dated 20th July 2016 is heard and determined,” the judge said and adjourned to 12 noon today, hearing of the plaintiffs’ motion on notice for injunction.

    Earlier, the judge dismissed a motion filed by on behalf of the PDP by Ferdinand Orbih (SAN) seeking an order for stay of proceedings in the case pending the determination of an appeal he filed against the court’ ruling of July 28, 2016.

    The court had, in the ruling, held that Orbih, who announced appearance for the PDP on the strength that he was briefed by the Makarfi leadership of the party, cannot appear in the case because the Makarfi group lacked the power to act on behalf of the party.

    The judge allowed Olagoke Fakunle (SAN) who was briefed by the Sherif faction to represent the PDP in the case.

    Ruling on Orbih’ application for stay of proceedings, Justice Abang held that the notice of appeal filed by Orbih was incompetent as he was not known by the court as a lawyer for the PDP.

    The judge said: “Mr. F. O Orbih (SAN) has no right of appeal over the decision of this court and against the ruling of this court recognising O. Fakunle (SAN) as the counsel for the PDP.”

    He said Orbih, having not been recognised as a party in the suit, he could only have appealed against decision of the court delivered on July 28 by first seeking the leave of the court to appeal as an interested person.

    “Having not obtained leave to appeal against the decision of the court, it is my view that he (Orbih) has compiled nothing and transmitted nothing (as regard the record of proceedings which he said he had compiled and transmitted).

    “Therefore, the compilation and transmission of records to the Court of Appeal is in nullity.”

    The judge also said Orbih failed to file a verifying affidavit, exhibitting the notice of appeal that he filed with respect of the case as he ought to do.

    “With the greatest respect to the learned counsel, he has laboured in vain. There is no evidence that the appeal has been transmitted,” he said.

    Justice Abang, who noted that the court spent about five hours in resolving Orbih’ application, awarded N50,000 cost against him, to be personally by him, in favour of the plaintiffs.

    Justice Abng equally dismissed a motion filed by one Sikirula Ogundele, asking for among other prayers, that the judge should disqualify himself from further hearing the case.

    In the motion which was said to have been filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Yemi Oke, Ogundele, who is not a party to the suit, accused the judge of bias.

    The judge was angered by the decision of the applicant to join him as a respondent in the appeal filed against the July 28 decision of the court by Ogundele.

    A lawyer, Dolapo Kehinde, who initially held the brief for Oke, withdrew his appearance in the case when he could no longer defend the content of the motion.

    Justice Abang, in upholding the request by Akintola and Fakunle for the dismissal of the motion, held that Ogundele “is a meddlesome interloper” in the case.He is a busybody wandering about.”

    He said Ogundele and his lawyers also flouted the provisions of section 188 of the Evidence Act which grants a judge judicial immunity against being sued over his decision in the course of his official duty.

    The judge said, but for the decision of Ogundele’s lawyer not to proceed with his application, he (the judge) would have cited him (Ogundele) for contempt for making contemptuous depositions in the affidavit supporting his application.

    Monday’s proceedings, which started at 9am, ended at 4.45pm.

    Parties are to return to court Tuesday at 12noon.

     

  • Abia crisis: state will emerge better under Ogah – group

    Abia crisis: state will emerge better under Ogah – group

    A group that calls itself Isi-Ogoasaa Consultative Forum, from Acha in Isuikwuato local government of Abia state has expressed optimism that state would be a better and economically viable one when Dr Uche Ogah assumed the leadership of the state.

    Speaking with newsmen in Umuahia, the leader of the forum , Chief Chikwendu Ibebuike Onwuegbu, said that since the electoral body had obey the directive of the Abuja Federal High Court presided over by Justice Okon Abang that the next thing to be done is to swear in Ogah without any further delay.

    Onwuegbu said that the delay in the swearing in of Ogah as the authentic governor of Abia state amounts to flouting the directive of a court of competent jurisdiction, which is not in line with the change mantra of the present administration.

    He said, “Since Dr. Ogah has been issued with certificate of return by the Independent National Electoral commission [INEC] the next action will be to swear him in as the Abia governor as declared by the Federal High Court which sat in Abuja in its ruling of 27th June 2016, presided over by Justice Okon Abang”.

    The leader of the forum said that despite the fact that, Governor Okezie Ikpeazu has exercised his legal right of appeal, “That appeal ought not to substitute the swearing in of Dr Ogah as the legitimate governor of Abia state as declared by Justice Abang”.

    Onwuegbu explained that, “Abia Charter of Equity as stipulated and enunciated by the founding fathers of Abia, has a pact that the various districts which were joined to create Abia in 1991 will take turns to govern the state which has been followed to the letter until now”.

    “The name Abia was derived from the four [4] letter acronym A-B-I-A representing the four [4] districts that were joined to create Abia, Afikpo District which stands for letter ‘A’  has taken their turn by Dr Ogbonnaya  Onu [1992-1993].

    “Bende District which stands for letter ‘B’  has also taken its turn by Dr Orji Uzor Kalu [1999-2007] and Chief T.A Orji [2007-2015] respectively, it is now the turn of the third letter ‘I’ which represents Isuikwuato District where Dr Ogah comes from  to produce the next governor”.

    “It is a simple logic that after Isuikwuato must have governed the next letter which is ‘A’ which represents Aba District, where Governor Okezie Ikpeazu comes from will produce after Isuikwuato district, so that the ethos of the charter of equity will be achieved to the letter”.

    He continued by saying, “That going by the pact of the  founding fathers of Abia as enshrined in the Abia Charter of Equity , Dr. Ogah is still on the right course which is the reason we are supporting him to be sworn-in as the authentic governor of the state“.

    On the issue of allegation that the certificate of returns given to Dr Uchechukwu Ogah by INEC is not valid, Onwuegbu said that, “Those dwelling on such fantasy should rather purse the substance than the shadow which they are doing to their own detriment”.

    He said, “The media team of Ikpeazu should allow the legal team to do their work and stop trying to deceive the people, as INEC remains the competent authority to issue certificate of return and the commission is always conscious of its statutory obligations”.

    “Since this political imbroglio broke out and they [Ikpeazu’s media team] came out that the certificate of return issued to Ogah is fake the big question is, has INEC come out to say that the certificate they issued to Ogah is fake, let’s face facts please”.