|
Chime searches for escape route as Enugu governorship
battle rages on
By Chuks Ehirim Newsdiaryonline
Mon June 27 , 2011
More than two after the 2011 general elections, the issue of who
was the legitimate Governorship candidate of the Peoples
Democratic Party[PDP], in Enugu State, is yet to resolved. On
Tuesday,June 28,2011,the legal battle to decide who is the real
Governorship candidate of the Party State,for the
April 26 governorship poll, will continue between incumbent
Governor, Barrister Sulivan Iheanacho Chime and Chief Alexander
Chukwuemeka Obiechina,a gubernatorial aspirant of the party in
the state.
The case which comes up at the Federal High Court 3, may have
the usual trappings of legal fireworks as lawyers on both sides
push for favourable arguments for their clients. Before
the election, a Governorship election, Chief Obiechina had
dragged Gov. Chime to an Abuja Federal High Court 4, presided
over by the Hon. Justice Gladys Olotu, over the qualification of
the Governor as the party’s candidate in the said election.
Obiechina had hinged his
argument on the fact that the primary election that produced
Chime as PDP’S Governorship candidate in Enugu State, was flawed
because it did not comply with section 85 of the electoral Act
2010 as amended. He joined the Independent National Electoral
Commission [INEC], as well as the PDP, as co-defendants in the
suit No FHC/ABJ/CS412/2011.
By an originating Summons dated April 6, Obiechina wanted the
court to determine, among other things, whether the PDP could
hold special congress or what it called primaries for the
purpose of nominating its governorship candidate without
complying with the provisions of section 85 of the Electoral Act
2010 as amended. He also
sort to know whether the two day notice given to the Enugu State
Resident Electoral Commissioner[REC], of the INEC for the said
special congress or primaries, complied with section 85[1] of
the Electoral Act. It would be recalled that the said primaries
in dispute, was held in Enugu, on January 12, 2011. Before that
day, an earlier primaries of the same party[PDP],had been held
on January 9, to which Engr. Anayo B. Onwuegbu claimed to have
won. That primaries of January 9, sources said, complied with
the provisions of section 85 of the Electoral Act, especially
with regards to the issue of INEC the mandatory 21 day
notice.
But before Hon. Justice Olotu could give ruling on the suit,
Gov. Chime petitioned the National Judicial Commission[NJC],
praying, among other things, that “Hon. Justice K. Gladys Olotu
should be promptly disqualified from hearing Suit No.
FHC/ABJ/CS/412/2011,while the allegations herein are properly
investigated with a view to preserving the dignity of the temple
of justice and all those who minister therein’.’
In his petition dated April 28 and addressed to the Chairman of
NJC, Gov, Chime alleged , among other things, that the Hon.
Justice Olotu had ‘’vested interest in the matter before her. He
also severally accused the Judge of not giving him fair hearing
in the case. Based on his petition, Justice Olotu decided,
to hands off the case, which was subsequently transferred to
Federal High Court 3, presided over by Hon. Justice Musa Bello.
The first time the matter came up at Justice Bello's Court last
month, the Governor's legal team was said to have employed
another time buying antics to delay the case from taking off
properly.
The same thing may repeat itself on Tuesday as Governor Chime''s
legal team headed by Mrs A.J.Offiah[SAN], is said to have, on
May 5, approached the Court of Appeal with an
application by way of Motion on Notice, seeking for ''An order
to appeal against the said Ruling of the Federal High Court
given on 21/4/2011''.
The motion also seeks for ''An order extending the time within
which Applicant herein appeal against the said Ruling of
21/4/2011. The ruling of theHigh Court which Chime's Lawyers are
seeking to appeal against,is said to be an interlocutory
decision of the Federal High Court that has to do with
consolidation of different applications in the matter. They are
arguing that they require leave of the court to appeal against
the decision which they said ,is
of ''mixed law and facts''
The lawyers had argued, specifically on paragragh 12 of 19
paragraph Affidavit in support of the motion on notice,that
''when Council wanted to prepare the brief of Argument in
respect of Exhibit A herein,she realised that applicant required
leave of court to bring the said appeal which raised issues of
mixed law and fact''. They also averred in paragraph
15,that''the error of Counsel in filling the Notice of Appeal
Exhibit B without leave of court is not
deliberate''.
But some other legal practitioners who are abreast of the
goings-on in the tussle, dismissed
the Appeal as nothing
but time-buying measure aimed at frustrating those who are
challenging the emergence of Chime as the PDP candidate in the
said election.
One of them who prefered not to have his name in print,argued
that the resort to this measure is to ensure that time within
which the Governor must conclude his brief, is extended. Chief
is said to have only seven days from Tuesday to do this but if
the prayer being sort, is granted, he will have additional 60
days. Supporting his claim with fact, the lawyer stated that
Offiah was actually reminded when she sort to appeal
against the rulling,that she needed leave of court to do so,but
that she declined to do so.
''On that day in court, she was told by counsel to the Plaintiff
that,''to appeal properly… She did not heed to that piece of
advice then. Now they are looking for further delay and that is
the reason this argument is coming up'', he said, adding however
that such antics may yield any fruits.
|
