The confusion over the Abia State
governorship seat deepened on Friday with two federal high courts giving
conflicting judgments on the matter.
A Federal High Court, Abuja refused to
vacate its June 27 order that the state Governor, Okezie Ikpeazu,
should be removed for presenting fake tax documents.
It also held that the certificate of
return, which the Independent National Electoral Commission, on June 30,
issued the plaintiff in the suit, Uche Ogah, was valid.
But in Owerri, another Federal High
Court dismissed a suit filed by another Peoples Democratic Party’s
governorship aspirant, Friday Nwosu, against the election of Ikpeazu on
the grounds that the governor’s tax documents were forged.
Ruling on the suit, Justice A.I. Allagoa, said Nwosu could not prove that the tax documents were forged.
Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High
Court in Abuja had on June 27 ordered the removal of Ikpeazu on the
grounds that the tax documents were forged. He directed that Ogah, who
was later given certificate of return by INEC, should be sworn in as
Governor of Abia State.
The governor subsequently headed for an
Abia State High Court in Osisioma to obtain an order which restrained
the state Chief Judge from swearing in Ogah.
…Ikpeazu’s order restraining Abia CJ, a slap on the court’s face – FHC Abuja Judge
On Friday in Abuja, Ikpeazu failed in his bid to stop the execution of the June 27 order of Justice Abang.
In separate rulings on Friday, Justice
Abang dismissed the two motions filed by Ikpeazu and the PDP, seeking an
order for stay of execution of the June 27 judgments of the court
pending the hearing of their appeals against the verdicts.
The judge ruled that there was nothing
left to be stayed since INEC had already complied with the two judgments
of the court delivered on June 27 by issuing fresh certificate of
return to Ogah as directed in the judgments.
The judge heard submissions and delivered bench rulings during the proceedings that lasted over seven hours.
He ruled that the orders made in the
June 27 judgments with respect to the two cases numbered,
FHC/ABJ/CS/71/2016 (personally filed by Ogah) and FHC/ABJ/CS/1086/2014
(file by one Obasi Uba Eleagbara), remained valid.
“The orders made in favour of Dr.
Sampson Ikpeazu in respect of this case (FHC/ABJ/CS/1086/2014) remains
valid until set aside by the Court of Appeal,” Justice Abang ruled.
The judge also validated the certificate
of return issued to Ogah by INEC, saying it was done in compliance with
the court’s judgments.
He ruled “The judgment has been
executed. The Certificate of Return has been issued in favour of Dr.
Sampson Ogah as Governor of Abia State.
“There is nothing to be stayed here.
Again, there is no evidence before the court to show that the
certificate was issued after service of the motion.
“No evidence to show that the certificate was issued after service of the motion on INEC if at all the motion was even served.
“Counsel that appeared for INEC on July
4, in a sister suit, which is related to this suit, informed the court
that the certificate of return was issued before service of the motion.
“So the burden was on Dr. Okezie
Ikpeazu to prove that the certificate was issued after service of the
motion and there is no such evidence before the court.
“So I’m inclined to believe INEC that the certificate was issued before service of the motion if at all it was served.
“Therefore, INEC lawfully issued
certificate of return to Dr. Sampson Ogah in line with the order of
court. The application lacked merit and it is accordingly dismissed.”
Justice Abang also slammed Ikpeazu for
approaching an Abia State High Court in Osisioma to obtain an ex parte
order restraining the Chief Judge of Abia State from giving effect to
the Federal High Court’s judgment by swearing in Ogah as Governor of
Abia State.
The judge held that Ikpeazu had slapped
the Federal High Court in the face by obtaining an ex parte order from a
court of coordinate jurisdiction to “neutralise” the judgments removing
him from office.
The judge held that Ikpeazu having
slapped the court in the face he was not entitled to being granted any
indulgence by the court.
He ruled, “Dr. Ikpeazu slapped the court
in the face. He went to a different court that is of coordinate
jurisdiction and obtained an ex parte order that has the effect of
neutralising the order of this court.
“He slapped the court in the face; he cannot expect the court to grant him an indulgence. I so hold.
“You cannot flout an order of court and
expect the court to listen to you and grant you a discretionary
indulgence. It is a serious matter to slap a court.”
The judge awarded N40,000 as cost in favour of Ogah and payable by Ikpeazu.
He also awarded the same amount in favour of Ogah and payable by the PDP.
He ruled that without paying the cost
first, both Ikpeazu and the PDP should not be allowed to take any
further steps with respect to the proceedings.
The judge earlier dismissed Ikpeazu’s
laywer, Chief Wole Olanipekun’s oral application to withdraw the motion
for stay of execution following a ruling by the judge refusing to grant
an adjournment of the case.
He ruled that it was immaterial that the
motion was not orally argued or moved in the open court as he went
ahead to determine the motion on its merit.
Justice Abang had in his judgments
delivered on June 27, with respect to Ogah’s and Eleagbara’s cases,
sacked Ikpeazu for allegedly disclosing false information in relation to
his tax clearance details to INEC in his form nominating him as the
candidate of the PDP for the last year’s governorship election in the
state.
But a few hours after INEC presented the
Certificate of Return to Ogah on Thursday in Abuja, an Abia State High
Court in Osisioma issued an order, stopping the state Chief Judge or any
other judge from swearing-in Ogah, the governor-elect.
Earlier before Justice Abang affirmed
his June 27 judgment on Friday as he had refused to hear Ikpeazu’s
application for stay of execution of the judgment filed with respect to
the suit numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/17/2016.
He directed that Ikpeazu and Ogah should
go to the Court of Appeal to argue the motion for stay of execution
which had already been filed before the appellate court.
This he said was because the lawyers to
the two of them (Ikpeazu and Ogah) had argued that he (the judge) no
longer had jurisdiction to hear the motion on the grounds that the
appeal against the judgment had been entered.
But Justice Abang held that though he
would not go ahead to hear the motion, the contention that the court no
longer had jurisdiction to hear it was wrong.
Ogah’s lawyer, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN),
agreed that the court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but
still urged Justice Abang to void the order of an Abia State High Court
in Osisioma Division restraining the Chief Judge to swear in his client
in after the INEC issued a fresh Certificate of Return to him (Ogah) in
line with the June 27 judgment.
But in his bench ruling on Friday with
respect to the FHC/ABJ/CS/17/2016 case, the judge held that contrary to
Olanipekun’s contention, the provision of Order 4, Rule 11 of the Court
of Appeal Rules only regulated interlocutory appeals while the
substantive case before the trial court was still pending.
He, however, ruled that he would not go
ahead to hear the motion for stay of execution of the court’s judgment
since the opposing parties had agreed that he no longer had jurisdiction
to hear it.
Court affirms Ikpeazu’s election, says tax documents not forged
But in Owerri, the Federal High Court affirmed Ikpeazu as the Governor of Abia State.
The court struck out the suit filed by
Nwosu, seeking to remove Ikpeazu as the governor for allegedly
presenting forged tax certificate to the party.
Nwosu approached the court requesting
that he should be declared the Abia State governor on the grounds that
Ikpeazu was not qualified to represent the party during the 2015 general
elections.
But ruling on the matter filed by Nwosu
against Ikpeazu, Ogah, the PDP and INEC on alleged forgery of tax
documents by the Governor Ikpeazu, Justice A.I Allagoa said the
plaintiff (Nwosu) was unable to prove that the tax documents were
forged.
The court ruled that the tax documents were not forged and went further to dismiss the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment