Supreme Court Fixes Date Over
Amaechi Vs Omehia
Tension
is fast mounting in the camps of supporters of both Gov.
Celestine Omehia and that of the erstwhile Speaker of the
Rivers State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi
Amaechi as the Supreme Court has fixed October 4, 2007 for
hearing notice on the appeal filed by Amaechi challenging the
judgement of the Appeal Court which upheld that his name was
lawfully substituted with that of Omehia despite that he won
the PDP governorship primaries in which Omehia did not
participate in. It would be recalled that Amaechi’s counsel,
Prince Lateef Fagbemi had on Friday 20, 2007 after the
decision of the appellate court same day, filed a 15-point
notice of Appeal at the apex court but the matter could not be
heard as the Supreme Court Judges had embarked on a 2-month
recess thereby stalling the matter. Amaechi who is on the last
lap of the hurdle to regain his mandate is appealed on the
grounds that the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to
follow and apply the decision in UGWU V. ARARAUME in SC/63/07
which it had bounded itself to apply following its ruling of
4th April, 2007 which was not appealed against. Fagbemi
insists that a Court of law is bound by its earlier decision
to do a particular thing on the occurrence of a particular
event. Also, the Court is not allowed to later distinguish a
case before it from another one it had bounded itself to
follow and apply. It would be recalled the
Appeal Court
in its decision/ ruling on April 4, 2007 had ruled that it
would be bound by whatever was the decisions of the Supreme
Court in appeal SC/63/07-UGWU V. ARARUME would be applied to
appeal No.CA/A/70/07, which is the present appeal. But the
when the Supreme Court delivered its judgement on April 5,
2007 in favour of Araraume, the appellate court refused to
keep its decision rather the respondents, PDP, INEC and Omehia
stalled the early conclusion of the matter by filing endless
applications.
The Federal High Court though affirmed the decision of the
1st Respondent which allowed the substitution but it set aside
the said substitution on the ground that same was done during
the pendency of the case, but according to Fagbemi, the
setting aside of the substitution makes Amaechi the candidate
of the PDP, the 3rd Respondent.
Though the Court of Appeal had ruled in favour of Omehia on
grounds that Amaechi was indicted by the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, counsel to Amaechi said the
Court erred in law when it allowed the applications of the 1st
Respondent, INEC, for further evidence on appeal to prove the
issue of indictment and applied same to hold that the
Plaintiff had been indicted and, therefore, came to a wrong
decision occasioning a miscarriage of justice, and which by
its implication means that the 1st Respondent can disqualify a
candidate for election contrary to the decision of the Supreme
Court in SC/69/2007-ACTION CONGRESS AND ABUBAKAR ATIKU V.INEC
delivered on the 29th June, 2007. Meanwhile, no case was made
out for the reception of further evidence on appeal as the
proceedings in the suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/74/2007. Amaechi’s
lawyers argue that the reception for further evidence on
indictment was irrelevant because it was not the basis upon
which the 3rd Respondent predicated its decision to make the
substitution since the only reason given by the 3rd Respondent
is mere ‘‘error’’. The issue becomes on whether the 1st
Respondent has the right to go outside the reason which a
political party gives for wanting to make a substitution under
Section 34(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006. INEC did do that and
cannot apply the issue of indictment of Amaechi as further
evidence though allowed by the Appeal Court did not prove
indictment as no certified true copy of the alleged indictment
was tendered. On whether the case is distinguishable form that
of UGWU V. ARARAUME in SC/63/2007, Fagbemi argued that the
Court of Appeal erred when it held that the two cases are not
the same when in the two cases what calls for determination is
whether a document such as Exhibit D in this case and Exhibit
K,L and L1 in SC/63/07 which stated that mere error can be
interpreted differently. It would be recalled that counsel for
Amaechi had submitted that the appellant’s case is even
stronger than Ararume’s case in that whereas in the Araraume’s
case, the person proposed as substitute was a co-contestant in
the primaries conducted by the party, unlike in this case
where the person proposed for substitution never took part in
the primaries, and thereby misconstruing the case put forward
by the Appellant and this has seriously occasioned a grave
miscarriage of justice.
Further still, Amaechi claims that the Court of Appeal
erred in law after correctly holding that the borne of
contention in this case was the interpretation of Section
34(1) and (2) of the Electoral Act, 2006 but wrongly applied
the fact of alleged indictment to sustain the decision of the
1st Respondent which allowed the substitution of the
appellant’s name. As at the 2nd day of February, 2007 when
Exhibit D proposing substitution of the Plaintiff’s name was
made, no indictment was in existence. The Court of Appeal also
erred in law and misconstrued Section 34(1) and (2) of the
Electoral Act, 2007 and Section 177 (i) (c) of the 1999
Constitution pn the issue of membership and sponsorship by a
political party when the two situations deal with different
situations and when in any event the alleged strong
interaction between the enactments does not come into play in
this case. There was no court order disqualifying the
appellant on any of the grounds contained in Section 177 (10)
(c). See page 2 for the summary of Amaechi’s appeal and Relief
sought from the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, supporters of both
men are said to be intense pressure as what would be the
outcome of the matter which is expected to commence on the
scheduled date. Though, Omehia had long been sworn-in as the
Governor, there are indications that all may not be well in
his camp as one of his close aides who spoke to us in
confidence said they are only relying on the support of the
former governor, Peter Odili who is believed to have a strong
connection with the judiciary with his wife as Justice of the
Court of Appeal. It was alleged that the watery judgement of
the appeal court was made possible because of her influence as
she was opposed to the choice of Amaechi as her husband’s
successor. The Odilis are said not to be leaving any stone
unturned in a bid to ensure that Omehia is not booted out of
office. According to the source, huge sums of money have been
spent on the matter with the aim of keeping the Judges on
their side rather than on the side of the law.
Amaechi’s supporters on the other hand have long wasted for
this day when the Supreme Court would keep the ball rolling
and ensure that ‘‘justice would not only be done but must be
seen to be done’’. They are banking their hopes on the points
of law which they believe is to their favour. It would then
appear that the case would be a test of the power of money and
the rule of law. On which would prevail, waits to be
determined in the matter in the shortest possible time as the
matter is not new to the Supreme Court which had on two
occasions ordered the
Appeal
Court to hear the matter as it had the jurisdiction to do so.
There are reports that if the Supreme Court rules in favour
of Amaechi, it may order for fresh elections. But Steeve Dappa-Ado
described it as a figment of the imagination of those peddling
such rumours. The State Government under Omehia has been
engaged in a battle against Gangsterism and terrorism which
has resulted to the illicit trade of hostage-taking. Though
there is fragile peace with the imposition of curfew and a
heavy presence of military presence leading to a lull in the
socio-economic activities in the state, the ruling PDP has
decided to conduct elections into the Local Government
Councils and this is threatening a further break down of law
and order as politicians and traditional rulers now employ
different means to ensure that they enthrone their cronies and
relatives. Investigations by The BEAM indicate that the
decision of the government to rush into the elections is not
based on constitutional provisions but due to fears that the
Supreme Court may rule against Omehia, as such he would have
enthroned his core supporters in the 23 Local Councils in the
state who would be in-charge should the Court order for fresh
governorship elections. But legal luminaries describe it a
share waste of time and resources as the Supreme Court can
only entertain pre-election matters. It is only the Election
Petition Tribunals who can do so as they are charged with the
responsibility of entertaining post-election matters.
The
President of the Rivers Success Movement, Dr. Chidugam Nyeche
Amadi said the hoard of Amaechi’ supporters are optimistic
that if fresh election were conducted, Amaechi would still
stand as the flag bearer of the PDP despite his purported
expulsion as the time for substitution has elapsed. He
dismissed such insinuations and said they were totally
baseless and constitutional.
back to top^^
