Supreme Court Decides Rivers’ APC Primaries Logjam Under The Gun Friday

ADVERTISE HERE

ADVERTISE HERE

The Supreme Court is to finally resolve the Rivers State All Progressives Congress (APC) primaries logjam tomorrow as it delivers its judgement on an appeal brought before it by parties in the protracted conflict, THISADY learnt last night.

The judgement, which had
been reserved indefinitely on Monday, apparently because of the
impending arraignment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice
Walter Onnoghen, by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) for alleged
non-declaration of assets, would be delivered against the background, of
what legal analysts described as concealed intimidation of the
judiciary by the APC-led federal government.

Analysts that spoke
to THISDAY last night were emphatic that there was a nexus between the
Rivers State appeal case and Onnoghen’s travails, pointing out that
statute and case law were very clear about the effect of admission of
error in assets declaration, contending that once infraction is accepted
by a public officer, recourse to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT)
would become spent.

They cited Section 3 (d) of the Code of
Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, which states, “The functions of the
Bureau shall be to receive complaints about non-compliance with or
breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers it necessary to do so,
refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by
section 20 of this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20
to 25 of this Act:

“Provided that where the person concerned
makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, no reference
to the Tribunal shall be necessary.”

They argued that it was on
the basis of this section that the National Leader of the APC, Senator
Bola Tinubu, was freed by the CCT when the Goodluck Jonathan
administration brought similar charges against him in 2011.

Incidentally,
they said, the lead counsel to Onnoghen, Chief Wole Olanipekun, was
also Tinubu’s lawyer, and that Vice President Yemi Osinbajo was part of
the legal team. Coincidentally, they reminisced, the current CCT
Chairman, Mr. Danladi Umar, was also the judge that delivered the ruling
that saved Tinubu.

“Why are they now harassing the CJN?” the analyst asked.

THISDAY
gathered last night that Onnoghen’s travail was meant to intimidate the
apex court to give judgement in favour of the ruling APC in the Rivers’
case, alleging that a former governor in the South-south and a serving
governor in the North-west, are the coordinators of the push against
him.

They were said to have told President Muhammadu Buhari that
they had Onnoghen on tape, saying the APC would lose the case, pointing
out that their main evidence of the CJN bias was the consistent loss of
the party at all levels, starting from the high court, through the
appeal court and now the apex court.

“It is in order to avert the
final loss at the apex court that they are doing this. This is more so
as they had suffered an earlier loss at the apex court,” a legal expert
close to the intrigues, told THISDAY.

He, however, said their efforts would come to naught as, quoting Speaker Yakubu Dogara, “Nigeria is not a Banana Republic.”

The
Supreme Court had on Monday reserved ruling on the competence of the
appeal filed by the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi,
faction of the Rivers State Chapter of the APC.

The five man
panel led by Justice Mohammed Datijo, fixed ruling on a date to be
communicated to parties after listening to the submissions of counsel in
the matter.

The Supreme Court had last December adjourned till
March 8, 2019 to determine the legality or otherwise of primary
elections the APC conducted in Rivers State for the purpose of
nominating its candidates for the 2019 polls.

The appeal marked SC/1070/2018, was lodged before the court by 22 chieftains of the party led by one Abdullahi Umar.

The
appellants, through their lawyer, Mr. Henry Bello, urged the Supreme
Court to re-affirm the ruling it delivered on October 22, and nullify
outcomes of the primary election that produced Mr. Dele Cole and other
candidates in the faction of the party that is loyal to Amaechi.

The
appellants equally urged the apex court to dismiss a pending appeal
marked CA/PH/198/2015, which the said faction lodged before the Port
Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal. But, the apex court reconvened
on Monday, about two months earlier than the planned date for delivery
of its judgment in the suit.

The sitting yesterday was sequel to
an application by the appellants requesting the Supreme Court to fast
track the judgment in line with the provisions of the 4th Alteration of
the 1999 Constitution as amended, which stipulates a 60-day time frame
for the matter.

Bello submitted that though the court ought to
deliver its judgment before January 1, however, “the court cannot do
anything because the matter has become statute bar.”

He,
therefore, prayed the court for leave to address it orally on the need
for the apex court to deliver a judgment striking out the appeal, adding
that the appellants’ motion of December 17, 2018, have been overtaken
by the expiration of time.

However, Justice Datijjo noted that
outside the appellants’ motion, there is also the need for counsel to
address the apex court on the competence of the appeal, adding that the
Supreme Court will not be competent in the first place to sit on an
appeal that arises from an incompetent appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Responding,
Bello drew the panel’s attention to paragraph 4 of the Appeal Court’s
record, wherein he submitted that the respondents did not opposed motion
of the applicants, consented and urged the court to grant the relieves
sought by the applicants.

“The order of the trial court is a consent order and specie of consent judgment,” he said.

He,
therefore, submitted that the appeal against the judgment of the trial
court was not competent, and urged the apex court to so hold and strike
out the appeal for being manifestly and grossly incompetent.

Respondents
counsel, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, however, drew the court’s attention
to the fact that there are two different appeals; the first, on the
interlocutory injunction and the other after the judgment in the
substantive suit.

He said the appeal after the substantive suit
has been struck out by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it was an
appeal against a consent judgment.

He said the appeal before the
court is not a consent judgment, as the dispute over representation was
not resolved by the lower court.

He further submitted that
the matter before the apex court is not a pre-election matter as what is
being challenged is the election of officers to the wards, local
government and state congresses of the APC.

After taken
submissions from counsel in the matter, Justice Datijjo announced that
ruling on the competence of the appeal has been reserved to a date that
would be communicated to parties.

It would be recalled that the
apex court had on October 22, nullified an interim order of the Court of
Appeal in Port Harcourt, which gave APC the nod to conduct its ward,
local government and state congresses in Rivers State.

In a
ruling that was delivered by Justice Centus Nweze, the Supreme Court,
faulted the appellate court for halting the execution of a Rivers State
High Court order that barred APC from going ahead with its planned
congress, pending the determination of a suit that was entered by Umar
and the 22 others.

It noted that the high court had on the basis
of the said suit, issued injunctive reliefs that expressly forbade the
APC from conducting congress in the state.

According to the
Supreme Court, Justice Chiwendu Nwogu of the High Court gave the interim
order of injunction on May 11, the same day that some hoodlums loyal to
a faction of the party besieged the high court premises in Port
Harcourt.

It observed that despite the attack and the restraining
order from the high court, which was further reaffirmed on May 13, the
APC, which was a respondent in the matter, went ahead and conducted its
ward, local government and state congresses on May 19, 20 and 21.

The
apex court said it was baffled that the APC, “in the most impudent
manner,” ran to the Court of Appeal to apply for stay of proceeding and
execution of the high court order with respect to the suit marked
PHC/78/2018.

It further observed that though the appellate court
declined to stay proceedings of the high court, it, however, stayed the
execution of the May 11 order by Justice Nwogu. Dissatisfied with the
decision, Umar and his group dragged APC to court over their alleged
exclusion from the primaries, filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.

They
argued that the appellate court engaged in judicial rascality by
refusing to abide by Supreme Court decisions on the issue of stay of
execution of valid court orders.

The appellants told the apex
court that the appellate court violated the principle of stare-decisis
(judicial precedents) and accorded favourable ruling to the APC, even
when it was “in grave disobedience to two orders of the lower court.”

While
acceding to the appellants’ prayer, the Supreme Court held that the
appellate court should not have vacated the injunctive order the Rivers
State High Court issued against the APC on the conduct of its
congresses.

Justice Nweze held that the action of the appellate
court amounted to “sacrilegious exercise of judicial discretion,” saying
it committed “gross insubordination,” by refusing to abide by
precedents already set by the Supreme Court.

He said the
appellate court was wrong when it judicially indulged the APC, even in
the face of abundant evidence that the Party was in contempt of
subsisting court orders.

Justice Nweze said, “It is a very
serious matter for anyone to flout a positive order of a court and still
approach the court for remedy.

“It is unfortunate and wrongful
for the Court of Appeal to have entertained a party in contempt of a
valid court order to the extent of granting judicial favour by way of
staying of execution of an injunctive order when the party at the center
of the dispute was in gross contempt of court.”

Stressing that
the respondent acted “in the most impudent manner,” the Supreme Court
held, “The simple truth, therefore, is that when the respondent applied
for stay of execution, it was in gross abuse of a court order.”

It
is this tongue-lashing of the appellate court below, showing the way
the overall case may go, said legal analysts that spoke to THISDAY, that
the APC-led federal government is trying to arrest by the “harassment
of Onnoghen.”.”

Source:- Thisdaylive

ADVERTISE HERE

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT ON THIS POST

Do you find Naijafinix Blog Useful??

Click Here for Feedback and 5-Star Rating!



Be the first to comment

Share your thoughts

Your email address will not be published.