The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Ozekhome

  • FG rightly ended trial of minors – Ozekhome

    FG rightly ended trial of minors – Ozekhome

    Rights activist, Professor Mike Ozekhome (SAN), has said the Federal Government was right to have discontinued the trial of some minors charged with treason over their involvement in the #EndBadGovernance protest.

    Ozekhome faulted the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) for charging them with treason for merely waving a foreign flag in Nigeria.

    He also faulted the trial venue, arguing the minors ought not to be taken before a Federal High Court in Abuja but tried before  Family Courts established under the Child Rights Act or Law and in the states where they were arrested.

    Ozekhome said: “Was it right to try minors for waving the national flags of other countries? Was this an act that constitutes a criminal offence? Was there mens rea (intention) and actus reus (physical consummation of the intention)? 

    “These are some of the questions generated by the recent arraignment of minors that rightly generated national rockets. Let us briefly interrogate these questions.

    “Treason is defined in section 410 of the Penal Code as ‘levying war against the State’ with the intention of ‘over-awing the (President)’. It is punishable with death. 

    “Treasonable felony (or ‘crimes’), on the other hand (as defined in section 412 of the Penal Code), manifests in, amongst others, an overt act done with the intention of either compelling the government to effect a change of policy, to intimidate, or to overawe the Legislature or to instigate a foreigner to invade Nigeria. 

    “It is punishable with life imprisonment.

    “It must be noted that while the Penal Code applies in the Northern part of Nigeria, the Criminal Code (and its variants) applies in the South. Provisions similar to those under the Penal Code also exist in the South 

    “It appears to me too far-fetched to charge a person with treason simply for merely waving a foreign flag in Nigeria, without more. 

    “There must be something overt, capable of igniting the intention, otherwise it will amount to criminalising a person’s right to freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution. 

    “Instigating our military (or that of another country) to overthrow the government would clearly constitute such an act; but nothing of the sort was shown in the case of the minors.

    “It must be pointed out that no law prohibits the prosecution of a person for violating any law – including treason or treasonable felony – unless he or she is less than 7 years old or if, between the ages of 7 and 12, he lacks the requisite maturity and capacity to understand the nature and consequences of his or her acts. See Section 50 of the Penal Code

    Read Also: Ozekhome: Supreme Court’s judgment halts FAAC allocations to CTC chairmen

    “Subject to such express exceptions provided, such a person of less than 18 years of age should only be arraigned before a Family Court established under the Child Rights Act or Law (defined as a High Court judge or Magistrate sitting with two assessors); but certainly not while they are exercising their regular jurisdiction. 

    “All persons except court staff, the accused, their counsel and family members are excluded from such proceedings under sections 149, 150, 151, 152 and 162 of the Child Rights Act which is in force in Abuja. 

    “Similar provisions exist in the Child Rights Laws of various states that have domesticated the Act.

    “It therefore follows that the Police should have charged the ‘underage’ defendants in either Kaduna or Kano under the relevant laws of those states instead of dragging them to Abuja. 

    “The trial in Abuja was farcical and contrary to  law. It was right and proper that same was discontinued,” Ozekhome said.

  • Ozekhome: Supreme Court’s judgment halts FAAC allocations to CTC chairmen

    Ozekhome: Supreme Court’s judgment halts FAAC allocations to CTC chairmen

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, has said that Thursday’s Supreme Court judgment on local government council autonomy made it clear that the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) will not send funds to local government areas headed by caretaker committee chairmen.

    Ozekhome disclosed this on Channels Television’s sunrise programme, The Morning Brief on Friday, July 12.

    He said: “The judgement of the government is clear. If you want to receive funds from the federation account, then conduct an election.

    “If what you have in place is a caretaker committee as local government chairman, be sure that it will not have money from the federation account.”

    Ozekhome also stated that with Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, development council areas created by Lagos and some other states are not qualified to receive funds from FAAC.

    Read Also: LG autonomy: Don’t swear in transition committee, Ondo lawmaker cautions Aiyedatiwa

    “What this law is saying is that if you are not a democratically elected local government council, you cannot have this money under section 162 subsection 5 and 6 of the 199 Constitution.

    “So, what it means is that money should now be ploughed to those local governments that are in existence democratically.”

    He said that states and local development councils can find a way to share the money internally after the constitutionally recognised local governments have received it from FAAC.

    “They can do that internally to share. That is their internal business, nobody can control that one. But for now, the money can only go to those local government areas named in the constitution. Don’t forget they are even named in the constitution, 774 local governments,” he said.

    “If you want money from the federation account, such councils must be democratically elected.”

    This comes following the recent Supreme Court verdict endorsing full local government autonomy and ordering that funds from the Federation Account should be paid directly to LG accounts.

    The country’s highest court, with Thursday’s verdict, stopped governors from receiving and tampering with local government allocations.

    Also, the Supreme Court barred governors from henceforth dissolving democratically elected officials for local governments and that doing so would amount to a breach of the 1999 Constitution.

  • Sanwo-Olu, Anyaoku, Ozekhome: Remove anomalies from 1999 Constitution

    Sanwo-Olu, Anyaoku, Ozekhome: Remove anomalies from 1999 Constitution

    Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, lawyer and human rights activist, Mike Ozekhome and other eminent Nigerians have condemned some of the anomalies of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    They made the remark at the Nigeria Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos on Monday during the national dialogue on the constitutional future of Nigeria in honour of the late constitutional lawyer, Prof. Ben Nwabueze who died on October 28, 2023, at the age of 92.

    The event, which was organised by the Patriots, a group of eminent national leaders of thought, took place under the theme, “Lawful Procedures for Actualising a People’s Constitution for Nigeria”. While condemning the 1999 Constitution (as amended), speaker after speaker at the event called for a new constitution.

    In his goodwill message, Governor Sanwo-Olu backed the agitation for a truly federal constitution that would devolve power to the states. He said it is an “anomaly” for a federal agency to control the water body at the Ozumba Mbadiwe axis of Victoria Island in the state.

    Read Also: Soldiers killing: No one left in community, says governor

    His words: “How well do we see the anomalies that we have in our country? Why would we have a federal agency come to control the water in front of Ozumba Mbadiwe?

    “Why would we have a federal agency 1000 kilometres away to come and see the needs of my people right on Ozumba Mbadiwe? These are some of the things that we need to tell all and say, indeed we need to have true federating states.”

    The governor said it is imperative for the National Assembly to create an avenue for Nigerians to come together to amend the constitution.

    He also lamented how some former state officials moved to the federal level to start fighting against the cause of decentralisation of power.

    Sanwo-Olu added that it is regrettable that people who are advocates of true federalism suddenly change as soon as they get to the centre.

    He however said the conversation around the making of a new constitution should be driven further recalling that there have been several discussions in the past which have not addressed the lingering issues.

    In his remarks, Chief Anyaoku said the current 1999 constitution lacks the legitimacy expected of a diverse society like Nigeria. He said the constitution is not suitable to address the myriads of challenges confronting Nigeria.

    The elder statesman called for the adoption of the recommendations of the 2014 national conference or the conduct of an “inexpensive” constituent assembly that would be nonpartisan to have a truly federal constitution

    Anyaoku who is the Chairman of the Patriots said Nigeria is a pluralistic country but has failed to develop like other pluralistic countries in the world which have succeeded by devolving powers to the federating units.

    He said: “First Nigeria is a pluralistic country that is still struggling to become a nation with assured political stability and progressive socioeconomic development.

    “The fact from across the world is that some pluralistic countries have succeeded in becoming nations while other pluralistic countries have failed and disintegrated. The lesson from this is that pluralistic countries which have succeeded in becoming nations have generally practised true federalism with considerable power devolved to the federating units.

    “This fact was acknowledged by our founding fathers who negotiated painstakingly and agreed on the Independence Constitution of 1960-1963. Our present 1999 constitution as amended not only lacks the legitimacy that flows from a democratically made constitution but also has proved to be unsuitable for tackling many of the serious challenges confronting our country.

    “It is a widely recognized fact that the crucial areas of the country have significantly deteriorated and continue to deteriorate.”

    The former Commonwealth scribe said Nigeria has suffered deterioration on many fronts in the area of Security of the citizens’ lives and properties, the economic well-being of the citizens, infrastructure including roads and education and health facilities, social cohesion and social values and the sense of national unity.

    He added: “These are areas where significant deterioration has occurred over the years.”

    The elder statesman said Nigeria has two options in getting a truly federal constitution by either adopting the recommendations of the 2014 National Confab or “we go for a relatively inexpensive directly elected constituent assembly on the non-party basis for producing such widely desired constitution.”

    Guest Speaker, Mike Ozekhome, a senior advocate of Nigeria (SAN), tasked the National Assembly to set up a National Referendum Commission that would collate all recommendations towards driving a new constitution.

    The event was attended by many political stakeholders, including Ayo Adebanjo, leader of Afenifere; Olabode George, a chieftain of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP); and some former governors.

  • Uzodimma: Supreme Court slams N40m cost on Ozekhome

    Uzodimma: Supreme Court slams N40m cost on Ozekhome

    • Apex court frowns at ‘frivolous motion’ by Ihedioha

    The Supreme Court yesterday came hard again on another senior lawyer.

    It slammed a N40million cost on Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) for aiding the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the 2019 governorship election in Imo State, Emeka Ihedioha, to file what the court termed a frivolous motion.

    This comes three years after it fined Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) N30 million each for filing a frivolous application.

    In a ruling yesterday, Justice Tijani Abubakar dismissed the motion by Ihedioha and the PDP.

    The applicants had prayed the court to set aside its January 14, 2020 judgment replacing Ihedioha with Hope Uzodimma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the governor.

    Justice Abubakar gave the lead ruling by a seven-man panel headed by Justice John Okoro.

    Read Also: Presidency fires Obi over comments on VP’s residence

    In their motion, Ihedioha and the PDP argued that Uzodimma was not validly nominated by the APC to contest the 2019 election.

    They urged the court to invalidate the years Uzodimma spent in office as governor.

    The applicants were joined as interested parties in an appeal originally filed by Uche Nwosu, who was the governorship candidate of the Action Alliance (AA) in the 2019 election.

    Ihedioha and the PDP also urged the Supreme Court to give effect to its 2019 judgment that disqualified Nwosu on the ground that he had dual nomination, having been nominated by both the AA and the APC for the same governorship election.

    They argued that since the apex court recognised Nwosu as a candidate of the APC, there was no legal basis for the judgment sacking Ihedioha and declaring Uzodimma (who it also found to have been sponsored by the same APC and for the same election) as the actual winner.

    The applicants urged the Supreme Court to restore Ihedioha to office since the APC could not legally sponsor two candidates for the same election.

    They argued that since Uzodimma did not contest the election as an independent candidate, there was no basis for him to be recognised as the validly elected governor.

    Ihedioha and the PDP argued that there was no rationale for the November 11 governorship election because Ihedioha had yet to conclude his tenure.

    When the case came up yesterday, the court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion filed over a governorship election held four years ago.

    Members of the court’s panel drew Ozekhome’s attention to the futility of his clients’ efforts and why he should withdraw the motion.

    Ozekhome ignored the Justices’ body language and proceeded to move the motion.

    But the court dismissed it for being without merit and “highly vexatious and frivolous.”

    The Justices awarded a cost of N40 million against Ozekhome. They insisted must he must pay it.

    It was not the first time the Supreme Court would censure senior lawyers so heavily.

    The Supreme Court, in February 2020, fined Chief Babalola and Chief Olanipekun N30 million each for agreeing to apply for the review of its judgment on the Bayelsa election.

    Justice Amina Augie, now retired, announced the fine while reading the lead judgment in the applications for a review of its February 13, 2020 judgment which overturned the APC’s victory in the governorship poll.

    With tears in her eyes, the justice regretted that “very senior” lawyers were responsible for filing the applications.

    The Supreme Court awarded the costs of N10m to be personally paid by Chief Babalola, who represented David Lyon, and Chief Olanipekun, for APC.

    It ruled that each of the SANs must pay N10 million to each of the three respondents – the PDP, Governor Duoye Diri, and the Deputy Governor, Lawrence Ewhruojakpo, bringing the total amount to be paid to N60 million.

    Justice Augie said the applications amounted to an inviting the apex court to sit in appeal on its judgment in violation of the Constitution.

    A seven-man panel of the apex court led by the late Justice Sylvester Ngwuta described the applications filed by the APC and Lyon as vexatious, frivolous, and constituted a gross abuse of the court process.

    Justice Augie held that granting the applications would open a floodgate for the review of decisions of the Supreme Court.

    “There must be an end to litigation,” she said, adding, “the decision of the Supreme Court is final for ages in a matter”, adding that only legislation could change it.

    Chief Babalola and Chief Wole Olanipekun protested the N60 million fine.

    In protest letters addressed to the National Executive Council (NEC) of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), they insisted that they did no wrong by asking the court to take a second look at its judgment.

    “We did no wrong, committed no error and do not deserve the harsh comments in the leading ruling of Justice Amina Augie…

    “There is no nexus or proximity or even bearing between the processes filed by us and the most unfair and least expected stern expressions of her lordship, Amina Augie,” Olanipekun wrote.

    Babalola faulted what he described as “disparaging remarks” made against him in the ruling.

    He insisted that he had a duty under the rules of professional conduct to devote his “attention, energy and expertise and subject to any rule of law, and to act in a manner consistent with the best interest of his client”.

  • UPDATED: Supreme Court fines Ozekhome N40m for filing frivolous motion against Uzodinma

    UPDATED: Supreme Court fines Ozekhome N40m for filing frivolous motion against Uzodinma

    The Supreme Court has imposed a N40million cost against Mike Ozekhome (SAN) for aiding the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the 2019 governorship election in imo State, Emeka Ihedioha to file what the court termed a frivolous motion.

    Justice Abubakar, in a ruling on Tuesday , dismissed the motion by Ihedioha and the PDP, with which they prayed the court to set aside its January 14, 2020 judgment, replacing Ihedioha with Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the governor of Imo State

    Justice Abubakar gave the lead ruling of seven-man panel of the court, headed by Justice John Okoro.

    In their motion, Ihedioha and the PDP had argued among others, that Uzodinma was not validly nominated by the APC to contest the 2019 election.

    They urged the court to invalidate the years  Uzodinma spent in office as Imo Governor. 

    The motion by Ihedioha and the PDP was filed in an appeal originally filed by  Uche Nwosu, who was the governorship candidate of the Action Alliance (AA) in the 2019 election, in which they applied to be joined as an interested party.

    In the motion, Ihedioha and the PDP equally urged the Supreme Court to give effect to its 2019 judgment that disqualified Nwosu on the ground that he had dual nomination, having been nominated by both the AA and the APC for the same governorship election.

    They had argued that since the apex court recognised Nwosu as a candidate of the APC for the same election, there was no legal basis for  judgement sacking Ihedioha and declaring Uzodinma (who it also found to have been sponsored by the same APC and for the same election) as the actual winner of the election.

    Ihedioha and the PDP urged the Supreme Court to restore Ihedioha to office since the APC could not  legally sponsor two candidates for the same election

    They argued that since Uzodinma did not contest the election as an independent candidate, there was no legal basis for him to be recognized as the validly elected Governor of Imo State.

    Ihedioha and the PDP argued  that there was no basis for the conduct of the recent election held in the state on November 11 because Ihedioha was yet to conclude his tenure

    Read Also: JUST IN: Supreme Court imposes N40m fine on Ozekhome

    At the mention of the case on Tuesday, the court noted that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain a motion filed in respect of a governorship election held over four years ago.

    Members of the court’s panel drew the attention of Ozekhome (lawyer to Ihedioha and the PDP) attention to the futility of his clients’ effort and why he should withdraw the motion.

    Ozekhome ignored the Justices’ body language and proceeded to move the motion, which the court, in its ruling, dismissed for being without merit, “highly vexatious and frivolous.”

    The court proceeded to  award cost of N40million against  Ozehkome, which it insisted, must be paid by the lawyer personally.

  • JUST IN: Supreme Court imposes N40m fine on Ozekhome

    JUST IN: Supreme Court imposes N40m fine on Ozekhome

    The Supreme Court has imposed a fine of N40 million on Mike Ozekhome SAN, for filing a frivolous, vexatious, and irritating motion before the court in respect of Imo state governorship in 2019.

    The Nation reports that the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 5, dismissed an application by Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking to be issued a certificate of return as the rightful governor of Imo state.

    Ozekhome who is the lawyer of Ihedioha was fined the amount for bringing a motion before the Apex Court seeking to revalidate the suit that removed him as governor of Imo state in 2019.

    The senior lawyer was ordered in a ruling by Justice Tijani Abubakar to personally pay the N40M fine to four respondents he dragged before the court.

    Those to be paid are the Action People’s Party (APP), Uche Nnadi, Uche Nwosu and the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC.

    In the motion considered to be frivolous by the Court, Ozekhome had asked the Court for a consequential order to compel INEC to issue a fresh Certificate of Return to Ihedioha to enable him to spend a four-year tenure as Imo Governor.

    Read Also: BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses Ihedioha’s suit against Uzodimma

    His grouse was that the incumbent governor, Hope Uzodinma unlawfully spent the four years that Mr Ihedioha ought to spend.

    Ozekhome’s motion claimed that the All Progressives Congress (APC) had no candidate in the 2019 Imo governorship election, hence, Uzodinmma ought not to have been made governor on the platform of APC.

    However, the Apex Court dismissed the motion on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain such a motion.

    Justice Abubakar held in the ruling that the request was strange, frivolous, baseless, unwarranted, vexatious, and irritating.

    He further held that the motion was a calculated design to demonize the Supreme Court.

  • ‘The Delborough’ a therapeutic super luxury facility – Ozekhome

    ‘The Delborough’ a therapeutic super luxury facility – Ozekhome

    Rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Prof. (Chief) Mike Ozekhome, CON, OFR, FCIArb, PhD has said that The Delborough Lagos is not just a hotel but a place of therapy given its world-class standard and services.

    The legal luminary was recently appointed as a Board Member of The Delborough with eight other prominent and influential Nigerians who have made their marks in different fields of human endeavour.

    Ozekhome spoke while addressing journalists shortly after the official inauguration of the Board recently in Lagos.

    Read Also: Business experts inspire sales professionals to break limits at Sales Pro Conference

    He said: “If you see the quality of people that make the Board, starting from our Chairman, the Obi of Onitsha; these are people who have built their names and brands over the years, and would never want to associate themselves with anything akin to failure.” 

    “Delborough Hotel Lagos is a form of therapy on its own – the services at The Delborough Lagos are beyond what I have tasted anywhere in the world”, the eminent legal luminary enthused.

    “It is the place to come for expatriates, multinationals, UN, European Union and other international bodies in Nigeria”.

  • State, LG police: What Buhari must do, by Ozekhome, Shittu

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ozekhome, and a law teacher Mr Wahab Shittu, have urged President Muhammadu Buhari to send an executive Bill to the National Assembly for the amendment of the 1999 Constitution to allow for state police.

    President Buhari received a report on the reform of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) prepared by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Presidential Special Panel on SARS Reforms.

    The report recommended, among others, the establishment of state and local government police.

    Ozekhome said: “First things first. President Buhari merely directed further action. Mr President cannot unilaterally set up state and local government police without the necessary constitutional amendments to that effect under Section 9(1) of the same 1999 Constitution.

    “This section requires two-third majority approval of the bicameral National Assembly made up of 109 Senators, 360 House of Representatives members and also two-third majority approval by the 36 Houses of Assembly and the FCT.

    “Sections 214 and 215 of the same Constitution establishes the Nigeria Police Force, giving it powers and duties and its major operatives, such as the Inspector-General of Police and State Commissioners of Police.”

    According to him, the police is a “non-performing behemoth, unwieldy and elephantine organisation” that needs to be broken up into smaller units as exists in some parts of the world.

    Shittu also faulted the current centralisation of the police. He said: “State police in the context of the peculiarities of Nigerian federation is a desideratum. This is because all offences are local and easier to police by elements familiar with the terrain.

    “The present arrangement whereby our policing is centralised may have contributed to the upsurge in the rate of criminality in our society.”

    He urged the government to take steps to amend the constitution. “Governors as chief security officers of states have no control of police in states under their control. Reference to governors as chief security officers in the context of our federation as presently constituted is indeed a mockery.

    “Police are under the control of the Inspector General (IGP) at the centre and this means our federation is in the reverse gear and a betrayal of the autonomy of states,” he said.

    He continued: “However there is no way we can have state police under the present constitutional arrangement without an amendment of the Constitution.

    “If government accepts the recommendations on state police, issues a white paper on same, government has to follow the process through by introducing an executive bill embodying the proposals to amend our constitution.

    “Can this be done? Yes. Is it desirable? Yes. lf achieved, it will go a long way in reducing the rate of criminality in our society.”

  • Appeal Court didn’t clear Zamfara APC candidates—Ozekhome

    Lawyer to the Senator Kabiru Marafa faction of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Zamfara State, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) confirmed yesterday that the judgment by the Court of Appeal in Abuja given on Thursday, set aside the January 27, 2019 judgment by Justice Ijeoma Ojulwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Justice Ojukwu had, in the judgment, held among others that there was no evidence before her court that the APC in Zamfara conducted valid primaries for the purpose of producing candidates for this year’s general elections.

    The decision of the Court of Appeal on Thursday, setting aside Justice Ojukwu’s judgment, for lack of jurisdiction, has since been interpreted by many to mean that the  Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should now accept candidates from Zamfara APC; a position Ozekhome faulted.

    He argued that since the Court of Appeal only set aside the judgment but failed to make a consequential order directing INEC to accept candidates from Zamfara APC, it implies that the earlier decision by the electoral body, refusing the party’s candidates, still stands.

    In two separate documents issued yesterday – a press release and a letter to INEC Chairman, both of which he personally signed – Ozekhome urged INEC to reject candidates from Zamfara APC on the grounds that “nothing has changed,” despite the Appeal Court judgment given in Abuja  on February 21, 2019.

  • Ozekhome, AGF differ over Zamfara APC candidates’ fate

    CONFUSION persisted yesterday on the fate of All Progressives Congress (APC) candidates in Zamfara State as two legal giants offer the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) contrary opinions on how best to proceed in view of Wednesday’s decision by the Court of Appeal in Sokoto.

    Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami (SAN) yesterday told INEC to abide by the subsisting Court of Appeal (Sokoto) decision, “which effectively upheld the APC primaries in Zamfara State.

    He said INEC was without any option than to tarry awhile and accommodate the APC candidates in Zamfara.

    In a contrary opinion, Mike Ozekhome, (who is a lawyer to the Senator Kabiru Marafa faction of the APC in Zamfara) argued that the Court of Appeal judgment did not uphold the party’s primary.

    He urged INEC to disregard Malami’s advice and proceed with the elections as scheduled without allowing the APC to filed candidates in Zamfara.

    Malami spoke in a statement issued on his behalf in Abuja yesterday by his spokesman, Salisu Othman. Ozekhome made his position known in the letters he wrote to the INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu and the AGF.

    The AGF said his understanding of the position of things, based on a petition by M.A. Mahmud (lawyer to the Abdulaziz Yari faction of the party), informed his February 13, 2019 letter to the INEC Chairman, requesting compliance with the judgment and extending the time within which the APC should field its candidate in the elections.

    Malami added: “It is pertinent to note that the constraining circumstances that led to the delay in fielding a candidate were caused by INEC’s refusal to comply with the Zamfara State High Court judgment, which upheld the said APC primaries.

    “INEC had relied on a Federal High Court decision, which nullified the primaries. However, the Court of Appeal decision in reference has now effectively overturned this decision and upheld the said APC primaries.

    “It is also relevant to reiterate the provisions of sections 38 and 39 of the Electoral Act, 2010, which allows INEC the latitude and discretion to extend the time within which a political party may duly field a candidate for an election, where unforeseen circumstances constrained such a party from doing so within the stipulated time frame.

    “It is therefore our position that shutting a candidate out of the elections despite a subsisting Court of Appeal’s decision mandating otherwise would lead to a miscarriage of justice and certainly not in the interest of giving all parties in Zamfara State a level playing field.

    “Our letter to INEC is therefore in line with the subsisting Court of Appeal decision as well as Sections 38 and 39 of the Electoral Act, 2010.”

    Ozekhome, who faulted Malami’s position, urged INEC to proceed with its planned election and allow the feuding parties in Zamfara APC, who were current in court, to exhaust their legal options.

    He argued that while it was only Aminu Jaji, who withdrew his appeal against the judgment of the Zamfara High Court that upheld the primaries, another appeal by Senator Kabiru Garba Marafa and others was still pending.

    Ozekhome said the Appeal Court in Sokoto has scheduled a ruling for today (February 15) in a motion for stay of execution of the Zamfara High Court judgment, filed in the appeal by Marafa and others.

    He added that another appeal against the January 25 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which did not recognise any primary by the APC in Zamfara, was currently pending before the Appeal Court in Abuja.

    Ozekhome argued that contrary to the views expressed by the AGF in paragraph five of his January 13 letter, there was never a time the Court of Appeal upheld the primaries by the Zamfara APC as valid.

    He alleged that the erroneous conclusion contained in the AGF’s letter was informed by the wrong interpretation accorded the ruling of the Court of Appeal by Mahmud.

    Ozekhome argued that “there is no legal basis whatsoever for INEC to change its well informed position by acceding to the demands of M.A. Mahmud, SAN & Co, or the AGF, to ‘comply with the judgment of the Court of Appeal by admitting the results of the APC Zamfara State primaries and to also comply with the provisions of Section 38 of the Electoral Act which empowers INEC to postpone the election for the governorship, National Assembly and House of Assembly elections.’

    “No such judgment exists anywhere.”

    INEC, however, said it received the letter from the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, demanding the postponement of the National Assembly, governorship and State House of Assembly elections in Zamfara State.

    INEC said it was still studying the letter after which it will make its position known.