The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court upholds Kogi gov’s election

    Supreme Court upholds Kogi gov’s election

    The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal which had sought the nullification of the 2011 governorship election of Captain Idris Wada (retired) as the governor of Kwara State.

    Idris contested the election as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    The appeal was initiated by the governorship candidate of the now defunct Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), James Ocholi (SAN). Ocholi, amomg others, urged the court to nullify Wada’s election and declare him the validly elected governor.

    Ocholi had contended that Wada was not qualified to contest in the December 3, 2011 governorship election because he (Wada) was not a candidate for the election earlier scheduled for April 26 of the same year.

    He argued that the election earlier scheduled for April 26, 2011 was not cancelled but only postponed to December 3, 2011, on the account of a court order.

    Ocholi argued that ‎the submission of nomination forms by candidates having closed on February 28, 2011 for the rescheduled April 26 election, Wada, who later became a candidate in the election held on December 3, 2011 was not qualified to participate in the election.

    In a unanimous judgment Friday, the Supreme Court held that Ocholi’s appeal lacked merit.

    Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun read the lead judgment.

    The Court affirmed the concurrent judgments of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court ‎in Lokoja, which had both dismissed the appellant’s case. It held ‎that the Federal High Court, Lokoja had in its judgment delivered on July 10, 2013, rightly dismissed Ocholi’s suit ‎for lack of jurisdiction.

    It further held that the prayers sought by Ocholi, in substance and in nature, was a matter that could be entertained by the election petition tribunal.

    “The aim of the appellant’s suit was the nullification of the victory of Wada at the election held on December 3, 2011 and a declaration that he is the lawful winner of the election and the person validly entitled to be sworn in as the governor of Kogi state.

    “The Federal High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain his claims. The concurrent decisions of the two lower courts in this regard cannot be faulted. The appellant has not advanced any cogent reasons to warrant interference by this court.”

    The court held that Ocholi waited for more than three months after the conduct of the election that produced Wada as governor before raising the issue of qualification of the candidates who participated in the election.

    “It had become a post-election matter that could only be determined by an election tribunal. I agree with the learned senior counsel for the respondent (Wada) that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant had every opportunity to institute his action before the conduct of the election.

    “Not only did he fail to challenge any of the steps taken by the Independent National Electoral Commission such as the publication of a new timetable for the conduct of primaries, the new election date and the list of qualified candidates for the December 3rd 2011 election, he fully participated in the new primaries and contested the election,” The court said.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, Justices  Afolabi ‎Fabiyi, Dantijo Muhammad, Clara Ogunbiyi, John Okoro and Centus Nweze, who were in the panel that heard the appeal, agreed with the lead judgment.

  • Dickson’s aide hails Supreme Court’s judgement

    Dickson’s aide hails Supreme Court’s judgement

    An aide to Governor Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State, Mr. Bello Bina, has hailed the Supreme Court’s judgment that confirmed Dickson as the authentic governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the 2012 election in the state.

    Bina who spoke in Yenagoa on Thursday said the court simply confirmed the general feelings of the PDP members in the state.

    He noted that the protracted litigation was diversionary and affected the focus of the government.

    With the litigation over, Bina said the governor would be focused to attend to government business and concentrate more on developmental programmes and policies.

    Bina who is the governor’s Special Assistant on General Duties said the end of the matter would enable the government to focus of development instead of wasting time and resources on frivolities.

    “The governor will continue to provide dividends of democracy to people of the state. We pray God to continue to guide, protect and provide the governor with good health, wisdom and foresight to pilot the affairs of the state,” he said.

  • Buruku: Why Supreme court ordered fresh election

    Buruku: Why Supreme court ordered fresh election

    This ruling is on a motion on Notice brought by the 1st Respondent/Applicant praying the Court for the following orders:

    “AN ORDER of this Honourable Court to amend, correct and/or set aside the consequential order made by this Honourable Court in its judgment of 30th May, 2014 pursuant to the provisions of Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to wit: that the 1st Respondent/Applicant stand for a fresh election with other candidates for the Buruku Federal Constituency of Benue State.

    AN ORDER directing that the 1st Respondent/Applicant be immediately issued with the certificate of Return by the 2nd Respondent and sworn in as a member of the House of Representatives.

    AN FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

    In support of this application was a 15 paragraph affidavit. Annexed to the affidavit were two exhibits. Exhibit 1 was the judgment of the Supreme Court containing the consequential order sought to be amended or set aside while Exhibit 2 was the judgment of the Federal High Court which nullified Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). The 1st Respondent/Applicant filed his written address which was adopted and relied upon at the hearing of this motion. The Respondents did not oppose the application. In the written address of the Applicant, the Learned Silk, Yusuf Ali, SAN, who represents the Applicant, formulated one issue for consideration. It states:-

    “Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of this application and given the provisions of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act and Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules 1999 (as amended), the reliefs in the application ought not be granted?”

    In his argument, the Learned Silk submitted that a combined reading of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act and Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules 1999 (as amended) empowers the Supreme Court in certain circumstances to review its judgments, notwithstanding the finality of its judgments. Also, that by virtue of Section 6 (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), there is an inherent power in the Supreme Court to grant the prayers of the Applicant.

    On the grounds upon which the Supreme Court may review its judgment the Learned Silk cited the following cases:

    Alao v. ACB Ltd (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt.672) 264, Ede v. Mba (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1276) 236, Ojiako v. Ogueze (1962) 1 All NLR 58, and Igwe v Kalu (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.787) 435 at 453.

    Learned Silk submitted further that the basis of the refusal of the Supreme Court in declaring the Applicant as the winner of the said election was exclusively on the provision of Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) whereas the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CSI/2011 between the Labour Party Vs Hon. Attorney General of the Federation (Exhibit 2) delivered on 21st July, 2011 had annulled the said provision. According to him, Section 141 of the Electoral Act (supra) has been completely wiped out of the Electoral Act by the said judgment of the Federal High Court. He opined that the Supreme Court in its judgment in Exhibit 1 was obviously oblivious of the fact of the nullification and obliteration of the provision of Section 141 of the Electoral Act upon which the consequential relief ordering a fresh election was hinged. It was his further submission that given this factual situation, and in view of the fact that Courts exist for justice, the Supreme Court was urged upon to correct the error varying the consequential order for fresh election with an order swearing in the Applicant herein as the member representing Buruku Federal Constituency of Benue State. He cited the cases of Amaechi V INEC (2008) All FWLR (Pt.407) 1, Odedo v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (Pt 449) 844 and Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) All FWLR (Pt.353) 3 at 203. Relying on Amaechi V INEC (supra) and other cases decided by the Court on the issue, he urged the Court not to deviate from its previous decision on the matter. He urged the Court to grant this application.

    In considering the application, the Court stated clearly from the outset that by virtue of Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Supreme Court cannot sit on appeal over its own judgment, noting that the provision gives a stamp of finality to any decision of the Supreme Court. The Court further stated that there is no constitutional provision for the review of the judgment of the Supreme Court by itself or any other body. And that is without prejudice to the powers of the President or of the Governor of a state with respect to prerogative of mercy. See Eleazor Obioha V Innocent Ibero & Anor (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt 322) 503. The Court stated its position in several decided cases that the Supreme Court possesses inherent power to set aside its judgment in appropriate or deserving cases but that such inherent jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction as though the matter before it is another appeal, intended to afford the losing litigants yet another opportunity to re-state or re-argue their appeal.

    The Court cited the case of Chief Kalu Igwe & 2 Ors V Chief Onwuka Kalu and 3 Ors (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.787) 435 at 453 paragraphs F – H and page 454 paragraphs A – C, where the Supreme Court, per Ogwuegbu, JSC held as follows:-

    “I shall state that this Court possess inherent power to set aside its judgment in appropriate cases. Such cases are as follows:-

    (i) When the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit either in the court or of one or more of the parties such a judgment can be impeached or set aside by means of an action which may be brought without leave. See Alaka V Adekunle (1959) 6 Ch. D 297, Olufunmise V Falana (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.136) 1.

    (ii) When the judgment is a nullity. A person affected by an order of court which can properly be described as a nullity is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside. See Skenconsult Ltd. V Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6, Craig V Kansen (1943) KB 256 and 263, Ojiako & ors V Ogueze & Ors (1962) 1 NCNLR 112, (1962) 1 All NLR 58, Okafor & Ors v. Anambra State & ors (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200) 659 at 680.

    (iii) When it is obvious that the court was misled into giving judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it. See Agunbiade V Oku-Noga & Co (1961) All NLR 110 and Obimonure v. Erinosho (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt.643) 14.”

    The Court affirmed that the Supreme Court made a decision in appeal No. SC.164/2012 decided on 30th May, 2014. In that judgment, the Court made three consequential orders, one of which was that the 2nd Respondent i.e INEC should conduct fresh election into the vacant seat of Buruku Federal Constituency of Benue State in the House of Representatives within three months (90 days) with the first Respondent/Applicant as the candidate of All Progressives Congress. The Court noted that the basis for that consequential order was Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) which states:-

    “An election tribunal or court shall not under any circumstances declare any person a winner at an election in which such a person has not fully participated in all the stages of the said election.”

    The Court in interpreting the above section stated that it is quite clear that the said section refers to some Courts for which the Supreme Court is not part of citing Section 133 (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) which define “tribunal or court” in Section 141 which states:

    “(2) In this part, “tribunal or court” means:

    (a) in the case of Presidential election, the Court of Appeal and

    (b) in the case of any other elections under this Act the election tribunal established under the constitution or by this Act.”

    Thus, the Court held that the Supreme Court not being one of the Courts mentioned in Section 133 (2) of the Electoral Act is not one of the Courts to which Section 141 regulates. The Court further held that this is much more so since the issue for consideration was not an election petition appeal but a pre-election matter stating that in appropriate cases, the Supreme Court has exercised its Power to order successful litigants to be sworn in immediately without the rigour of having to go through another election and the Applicant herein should not be an exception. See Amaechi v. INEC (2008) All FWLR (Pt.407) 1 Orhena Adugu Gbileve & Anor V Mrs. Ngunan Addingi & Anor Appeal No. SC. 193/2012 delivered on 31st January, 2014, Jenkins Giane Divine Gwende v. INEC & 3 Ors, Appeal No. SC.255/2013 delivered on 24th October, 2014.

    The Court held that clearly, the definition of “tribunal or court” does not include the Supreme Court or the Federal High Court hearing and determining pre – election matters. The Court held that it is trite law and an unassailable legal principle that the express and unambiguous mention of one thing in a statutory provision, automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have applied by implication with regard to the same subject matter. This the Court stated is usually captured in the Latin maxim which states “Expressio unis est exclusio alterus.”

    See Ogbuniyinya v. Okudo (1979) 6 – 9 SC 92, PDP V INEC (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.626) 200, Buhari V Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt.841) 446.

    On the whole, in its well considered opinion the Court held that the application is meritorious and was thereby granted as prayed. Accordingly, the consequential order No 2 made in the judgment of the Supreme Court in appeal No SC.164/2012 delivered on 30th May, 2014 which ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct fresh election into the vacant seat of Buruku Federal Constituency of Benue state in the House of Representatives was set aside.

     

    LawPavilion Citation: (2015) LPELR-24420 (SC)

    Compiled by:  LawPavilion

     

  • Supreme Court wants status quo maintained over OMLs sales

    The Supreme Court has asked parties in a suit involving Brittania-U Nigeria Limited, Chevron/Seplat and others to maintain status quo and not do anything that might overreach the case.

    Justice John Fabiyi, who sat on the appeal, also reminded counsel representing the parties that it was their duty to advise their clients on the need to respect the court’s authority.

    The case is in respect of the acquisition of Chevron’s interest in oil mining leases (OMLS) 52, 53 and 55.

    Brittania-U’s counsel, Chief Rickey Tarfa (SAN) sought to move a motion for interlocutory injunction pending the appeal’s hearing.

    Seplat’s lawyer Damian Dodo (SAN) informed the court that the appeal itself was ripe for hearing, but that they filed their respondent’s brief out of time.

    The court expressed its willingness to hear the substantive appeal.

    The Federal High Court in Lagos had granted interim injunction against Chevron and others, restraining them from selling to Seplat Chevron’s 40 percent participation interest in OMLS 52, 53  and 55.

    Brittania-U alleged that it won in a competitive bid for the OMLs conducted by Chevron’s investment bankers-BNP Paribas, in 2013 at a price of USD $1.015 billion.

    Seplat appealed to the Court of Appeal in Lagos against the refusal by the Federal High Court to vacate the interim injunction, contending that the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case was being challenged by the respondent.

    The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in June 2014, reasoning that the life of the interim order could not be extended, while the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was being challenged.

    Dissatisfied, Brittania-U appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking the restoration of the injunction granted by the Federal High Court, which was to last till the motion for the interlocutory injunction is determined.

    It was learnt at the weekend that officials of both Chevron and Seplat landed in Port Harcourt, in what was ostensibly believed to be a mission to inspect two of Chevron’s assets that the multinational put up for sale in 2013, the matter of which is now subject of litigation.

    The inspection trip came barely a day after the Supreme Court, sitting for the first time over an appeal filed before it, said it was ready to proceed with the main suit and admonished parties to the suit to stay any action on the asset sale and not to do anything that would overreach the case.

  • Supreme Court director bags doctorate degree

    Supreme Court director bags doctorate degree

     

    The Director of Press and Information at the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Dr. Akande Aweneri Festus, was among the graduands conferred with the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the 44th convocation ceremony of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka last month. He has, by this feat, ranked among the first set of PhD holders in Public Relations in Nigeria; a programme pioneered in Africa by the University of Nigeria.

    Dr. Akande, a graduate of Mass Communication, holds a Postgraduate Diploma in Business Administration, MSc Degree in Public Relations and MBA Degree in Marketing from University of Nigeria, Nsukka. He also has a BSc (Hons) Degree in Marketing from Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT).  He bagged the Chartered Professional Certificate and Diploma in Public Relations from Nigerian Institute of Public Relations and Business Education Examinations Council in 1990 and 1992 respectively. A Journalist, Public Relations Practitioner and Teacher of over 25 years, Dr. Akande had been involved in the training of Journalists and Public Relations practitioners in Lagos State University (LASU), Nigerian Institute of Journalism (NIJ), Times Journalism Institute, Nigerian Institute of Public Relations School (NIPR); and was the pioneer Director of Lagos Public Relations Academy (LAPRA).

    Dr. Akande also worked with the now defunct Abuja News Day Newspapers (the first print mediumin the Federal Capital Territory), Nigerian Tide Newspapers (Rivers State Publishing Corporation), and TELL Magazine, where he rose to management cadre. He also established the Special Project Unit of FAME Magazine in Lagos. He is an accomplished Speech Writer, Public Speaker and Author of robust international repute, having to his credit the following books: In-Road into Public Relations; Contemporary Media Relations Management; Effective Speech Writing and Public Speaking; Principles and Techniques of Public Relations; Application of Industrial Psychology and Sociology to Public Relations Management; Public Relations Strategy in International Marketing; International Public Relations Management; Dance of a Dead Man; Fela Anikulapo-Kuti: The Man, The Myth and The Mystery; Darkness At Noon (which was published in United States (US) and got the certification of the Library of Congress); among others. He has also published many research papers in different International Academic Journals and co-authored several monographs in the United Kingdom (UK) and the US respectively.

  • Supreme Court nullifies Plateau traditional ruler’s appointment 30 years after

    Supreme Court nullifies Plateau traditional ruler’s appointment 30 years after

    The Supreme Court yesterday nullified the appointment of a traditional ruler in Plateau State, Nde Goyang Kayili of Somji, Kabwir District, Pankshin Local Government Area, 30 years after he ascended the throne.

    Delivering the lead judgment in an appeal brought by Kayili’s counsel against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, Justice Clara Ogunbiyi held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.

    The apex court’s five-member panel also held that the main appeal and cross-appeals were devoid of merit and dismissed them but declined to award costs to either party.

    According to the court the Court of Appeal was right to have decided that the Somji Stool was rotational between the two royal houses of Neha and Ne’es.

    It affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment that it was Neha’s exclusive right and turn to occupy the stool since the death of Nde Boyi Goshit from Ne’es family on Sept. 5, 1984.

    Justice Ogunbiyi said:“The Court of Appeal was on a sound footing and could not be faulted when it preferred the evidence of the plaintiffs on this issue as against the evidence of the defendant.

    “In the result and with all issues resolved against the appellant, the totality of the appeal is lacking in merit and on the totality of the appeal and cross-appeal, both are dismissed with no order as to costs.

    “Having proved that they belong to the Somji Ruling House, whose stool is rotational, and that it is now the turn of their Ruling House, it is therefore, their exclusive right to occupy the stool.”

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reported that the plaintiffs, Esly Yilbuk and two others, now deceased, had instituted the suit in 1987, challenging Kayili’s appointment on behalf of the Neha Ruling House.

    The plaintiffs had joined Plateau Attorney-General and Pankshin Local Government as co-defendants in the suit.

    Mr Jim Gotom, the plaintiffs’ counsel, had sought the following reliefs, among others: a declaration that the purported election,selection or appointment and installation of Kayili by the Pankshin Local Government and confirmation by the state government was null and void;and a declaration that the plaintiffs and Neha family was the only house or has right to aspire to Somji stool.

    The plaintiffs also sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from parading himself as the ruler of Somji ,and restraining government from recognising the defendant’s appointment or validating same.

    The trial court had held that the plaintiffs’ claim to the throne had not been proved and dismissed same, following which they proceeded to the Court of Appeal, Jos Division.

  • Supreme Court reinstates sacked Taraba deputy governor

    Supreme Court reinstates sacked Taraba deputy governor

    … Acting governor to vacate office

    The Supreme Court has sacked the Deputy Governor (who is the Acting Governor) of Taraba State, Garba Umar, on the ground that the process leading to the impeachment of his predecessor, Sani Abubakar Danladi was unconstitutional.

    The court voided Danladi’s impeachment and ordered that he be reinstated.

    Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, who read the lead judgment of a seven-man panel that held an appeal by Danladi, upheld his (the appellant’s) argument that he was not accorded fair hearing by the panel that investigated the allegations against him and found him guilty of gross misconduct.

    Danladi, in the appeal marked: SC 418/2013 had prayed the court to set aside the earlier decisions by the Court of Appeal, Yola and the Taraba State High Court, which affirmed his impeachment.

    Danladi was impeached by the state’s House of Assembly on October 4, 2012 on ground of gross misconduct. He had accused the now ailing Governor Danbaba Suntai of influencing the legislators’ action.

    He challenged the impeachment at the state’s High Court, but the court in its judgment of March 19, 2013 upheld the impeachment. He went before the Court of Appeal, Yola, which equally upheld the impeachment in its judgment of July 19, 2013, prompting Danladi to approach the Supreme Court.

     

     

  • Supreme Court decides today ex-Taraba deputy governor, Assembly suit

    Supreme Court decides today ex-Taraba deputy governor, Assembly suit

    The Supreme Court will today rule on the suit filed by former Taraba State Deputy Governor Abubakar Sani Danladi against the House of Assembly for impeaching him on allegations of fraud and abuse of office.

    There had been tension in the state over the court verdict.

    The legal battle is said to be against the Assembly but targeted against Acting Governor Alhaji Garba Umar, who has effectively consolidated his hold on power since Governor Danbaba Suntai was injured in a plane crash on October 25, 2012.

    A victory for the Assembly means the acting governor’s victory, but the former deputy governor’s victory means that Umar will cease to be the deputy and acting governor, and asked to vacate the office.

    Danladi was impeached at the alleged prompting of Suntai, which paved the way for Umar to become acting governor.

    He asked the Supreme Court to reverse his impeachment.

    Majority of the 24 members of the Assembly had voted to uphold the recommendations of a seven-member judicial commission of enquiry, which was set up by the Chief Judge, Josephine Tuktur, to investigate the allegations of “gross misconduct” against the former deputy governor.

    The report of the commission said Danladi was guilty of using his office to divert the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) projects to Yagai Academy -his private school.

  • N22b investment: Supreme Court urged to dismiss firm’s appeal

    N22b investment: Supreme Court urged to dismiss firm’s appeal

    About 13,741 investors in Nospecto Oil and Gas Ltd have asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal filed the company, challenging their over N22billion investment in the firm.

    The investors, in their respondents’ brief, prayed the court to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lagos, which ordered the release of their investment worth N22bn seized from the firm by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

    The investors, who are joined as respondents along with the CBN and the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), in their respondents’ brief, urged the Supreme Court to among others affirm the illegality of Nospecto’s business.

    The respondents’ brief was filed on behalf of others by  14 of the investors named in the case.

    The include Matiluko Olorunnimbe, Badejo Rowland, Mrs. Victoria George, Ishaytayo Akanni, George Ushie, John Igho, Joshua Kanwai, Wada Fwa, Alhaji Abubakar Buba, Yakubu Lawal, Col. Gil Sese, Hajiya Bilikisu Rawayau, Olorunfemi Biodun and Adedeji Lawrence.

    The CBN in May 2007,  halted the business of Nospecto, which allegedly seduced investors with the promise of huge returns, on the grounds that it was carrying out an illegal business.

    The apex bank froze the company’s accounts and asked SEC to take custody of the money totaling N22,445,571,446.84.

    The CBN and SEC, also named as  respondents in the appeal before the Supreme Court are yet to filed their briefs.

    The investors through their lawyer, Debo Adeleke, they urged the apex court to make a consequential order that the money be released to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court who should keep the money in a profit yielding account.

    They stated in their brief that “Consequent upon the above arguments and submissions by the 1st 14th respondents, for and on behalf of other 13,604 registered investors with the appellant, the 1st to 14th respondents respectfully pray this honourable court to dismiss the appellant’s appeal with substantial costs same being frivolous, lacking in merit, diversionary and time wasting.

    Yesterday, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, who presided, adjourned the matter till January 27, 2015, as it could not be confirmed if SEC which was not represented by a counsel, had been served with the processes.

    Appellant’s lawyer, Roland Otaru (SAN) also sought an adjournment on the ground that he had just been briefed to handle the case and has not received copies of the respondents’ brief.

  • Ngige hails Obiano on Supreme Court verdict

    Ngige hails Obiano on Supreme Court verdict

    The senator representing Anambra Central, Dr Chris Ngige, has congratulated Governor Willie Obiano on his victory at the Supreme Court on Monday.

    The former governor described Obiano’s victory as a verdict of humans.

    In a statement yesterday in Awka, the state capital, Ngige urged Anambra State residents cooperate with the governor to enable him succeed in his administration.

    He hailed his supporters for their resilience and faith in him.

    The senator noted that those virtues stood them out when they elected him and stood by him during his political challenges.

    Obiano defeated Ngige and Comrade Tony Nwoye on Monday at the Supreme Court in the dispute that followed the 2013 governorship election.

    Ngige’s statement said: “This Supreme Court judgment and other judgments of the lower courts that upheld an election which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had admitted fell below expectations, for me, is a verdict of humans.

    “The judgment of the good people of Anambra has been long delivered to me since the day voters from Idemili North, Idemili South, Awka South, Ogbaru local governments (Okpoko) and my other strongholds were disenfranchised on November 16, 2013.

    “We, as mortals, will now wait for the most supreme and eternal judgment of the Almighty God on this same matter at His appointed time. God is great and wonderful.”

    “However, having been declared the ‘legal winner’ of that election, I hereby congratulate Mr. Willie Obiano and wish him well in his new assignment. I also use this medium to request all Anambra people, irrespective of political party or religious affiliations, to cooperate with him in the discharge of the onerous functions of his office.

    “As for my numerous supporters across the state, we have fought a good fight and the future holds out a better tomorrow than yesterday…”

    “I, therefore, wish to thank them for their resilience, massive and unrelenting support, which has always been there for me in all my electoral engagements and duels in our state.”