|
AMAECHI Vs INEC, OMEHIA, PDP
Tension Mounts In Pdp
…Full Details of how the Lawyers argued
…Judgement fixed for March 15
‘The Party’s decision is final’- Omehia’s Counsel
‘You are citing outdated Electoral Laws’- Amaechi’s Counsel
The Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon.
Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi will on Thursday know his fate as the
Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice Binta
Murtala Nyako gives judgement in the suit filed by the Speaker
challenging the decision of the Independent National Electoral
Commission, INEC, to substitute his name with Barr Celestine
Omehia as the Governorship flag bearer of the Peoples
Democratic Party, PDP. On Friday last week, during a crowded
session which witnessed the presence of many legal luminaries,
leading Counsel for Amaechi, the Plaintiff, L.O.Fagbemi (SAN)
told the judge that despite her order that parties in the suit
should avoid acts capable of undermining the process, the 1st
Defendant, INEC, went ahead to publish the name of the 2nd
Defendant as the candidate of the PDP for the April 2007
elections despite being informed in a letter by the chambers
of L.O.Fagbemi. He also tendered both a copy of the list and
the letter as exhibits. Counsel for Omehia, E.C.Okala (SAN)
had argued that the plaintiff did not apply for an order
restraining INEC from going ahead to substitute Amaechi’s
name. Fagbemi countered his position by saying that the Judge
had already said that once a matter was in Court for hearing,
it would not be proper for any of the Parties to pre-empt the
Court decision. He cited the case of Ezebu vs FATB Ltd.-1992,
pg 220, pg. 669-720 that No party should do anything in
subject to the litigation which will undermine the litigation.
In his ruling, Justice Tobi had ruled that none of the Parties
should take the laws into their hands, thereby making it
difficult for the Court to decide.
In his submission, Okala had told the Court that the issue
of substitution of a candidate’s name was the domestic
business of the Party and thus cannot be decided upon by the
Court. He also argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the case. On why the PDP said it had earlier
submitted Amaechi’s name in error, Okala explained that error
means a mistake and as such has no judicial interpretation. He
also said that Article 21 of the PDP Constitution which was
marked as exhibit ‘F’ shows that once the decision of the
Party is taken, nothing can be done to change it. But Counsel
for the Plaintiff, Steeve Dappa-Addo argued that based on the
ruling in the case between Araraume vs Ugwuh that the Judge
has jurisdiction to entertain the case as INEC is a technical
body. Dappa-Addo submitted that the power of the defendants to
effect a substitution must be done in accordance with the Law
which he said was the proviso in Justice Nyako’s judgement in
the case of Araraume vs Ugwuh which was cited by Okala.
Steve Dappa-Addo said that Okala had cited old Nigerian
electoral cases which had based their arguments on out-dated electoral laws and
therefore reminded the Judge that every election in
Nigeria has its own electoral
acts. Dappa-Addo punctured Okala’s argument in a case between Wike vs Ichenwo.
He said the case was decided based on electoral decree of 1988 which says that
the Party has a right to change the name of its candidate. Dappa-Addo said that
the present electoral act of 2006 does not allow such provisions as it says that
the change must be done according to the law. He said that the issue of timing
is also important as because at the time the case was instituted, PDP had not
made any change. He also argued that the case has nothing to do with sponsorship
of a candidate by a Party, since the plaintiff’s name had been submitted to INEC
within the stipulated time, thus it has become his Right.
Dappa-Addo cited the case of Goodhead vs Amakiri in the
2004 Nigerian Weekly Law report, pg.854 saying that it was ruled that it is not
the right of any political Party to withdraw the name of a candidate it has
sponsored at any time. It can only be changed through the Courts. On Okala’s
acceptance that the PDP substituted Amaechi’s name with that of Omehia based on
error, Dappa-Addo argued that the reason given by PDP and accepted by INEC where
in Okala posited that the word ‘Error’ has no legal proof is like fraud for
which the particulars must be given and since the defendants could not give the
particulars or meaning of error, the honourable Court has powers to use either
subjection to maintain that the Plaintiff is the duly qualified candidate of the
PDP for contesting the election. Dappa-Addo also pointed out the inability of
Okala to cite the relevant section of the PDP Constitution which empowers the
Party to substitute the name of a candidate already submitted to INEC without
what the electoral act of 2006 says it can only be done based on cogent and
verifiable reasons. In his own submission, Counsel for PDP asked the Court to
use its discretion based on the law to determine if the Plaintiff has the right
to contest the election as the candidate of the PDP. Justice Binta Murtala Nyako
adjourned the case till
March 15, 2007 for judgement.
While the PDP has continued its campaign in the 23 Local
Government Areas in
Rivers
State with Barr.Omehia as its flagbearer, supporters of Amaechi are hopeful that
their Principal will still emerge.
Amaechi and his supporters
will definitely know fate on Thursday, March 15, 2007
back to top^^ |
