Again, parties to the seemingly unending legal tussle over the governorship of Rivers State and their supporters will besiege the Supreme Court on November 11, in what appears to be the final leg of the dispute.
This time, the court, having consolidated all applications on October 3, will conduct a hearing during which parties are expected to adopt their final written briefs preparatory to judgment.
The dispute between sacked Governor Celestine Omehia and the incumbent, Rotimi Amaechi, though once resolved by the apex court in 2007, was rekindled in 2010 when the Court of Appeal made Omehia a party in a suit in which he was not involved at the trial court.
A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Cyprian Chukwu, had in 2010 initiated the suit when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) published the timetable for the 2011 general elections. The timetable slated the governorship election in Rivers State for August 2011.
In the suit filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja, with Amaechi and INEC as defendants, Chukwu faulted INEC’s decision to schedule the governorship election in Rivers State for August. He urged the court to interpret the 2007 judgment by the apex court, which sacked Omehia and enthroned Amaechi.
Chukwu also urged the court to determine whether governorship election should be held in Rivers during the general election of April or later, since Amaechi took the oath of office in October 2007 as against May 29 when his counterparts in other states were sworn into office.
It was his contention that since the Supreme Court, in its decision upon which Amaechi was made governor in 2007, held that it was his party the PDP that won the April 2007 governorship election in the state, Amaechi’s tenure ought to start counting from May 29, 2007 and not October 27, 2007 when he took the oath of office after Omehia was sacked.
Although the defendants argued otherwise, the trial judge, Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati, in his judgment, held in favour of the plaintiff. He specifically held that though Amaechi took the oath of office on October 26, 2007, his initial tenure ended on May 28, 2011.
The judge held that since the Supreme Court (in the 2007 judgment, which sacked Omehia) held that it was the party (PDP) that won the April 2007 governorship election in the state and not the candidate (Amaechi), the tenure started counting on May 29, 2007 when Omehia was wrongly sworn in.
Justice Abdulkafarati further held that the time Omehia spent in office formed part of Amaechi’s actual tenure of four years since the apex court merely sacked the person who wrongly occupied the office and did not annul the election of April 14, 2007 won by the PDP, and on which basis he assumed office.
The judge added that it was wrong in law for Amaechi to expect that his tenure would extend to October 2011
Not satisfied with Justice Abdulkafarati’s decision, Amaechi and INEC went before the Court of Appeal, Abuja. But before the appeal could be considered, Omehia applied to be made a party in the appeal initiated by Amaechi and INEC.
Amaechi, through his lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), opposed the application, contending that Omehia was neither a necessary nor a desirable party, a position Omehia countered by arguing that since he was a party in the case that led to the 2007 Supreme Court judgment, which the Federal High Court interpreted, he was adversely affected by the judgment and was eligible to be made a party.
Omehia, in a supporting affidavit, averred: “I am dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court and wish to appeal against same as a person interested in the matter, and in the office of governor of Rivers State which form the basis of my interest as well as a person interested in the interpretation of a judgment in which I was a principal party.”
He told the court that he was desirous of contesting the state’s governorship election under the banner of another party, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), and prayed to be made a party in the appeal to enable him challenge the judgment of the High Court, which he described as incorrect.
In its ruling, the appellate court held in his favour and made him a party in the case, a decision Amaechi faulted and consequently headed for the Supreme Court.
Fagbemi, who filed Amaechi’s appeal, argued that Omehia deliberately hid, from the Appeal Court justices, the fact that he actually participated in the April 2011 governorship election on the platform of APGA and lost.
He contended that being a party in the case leading to the 2007 Supreme Court judgment, which the High Court judge interpreted, was insufficient to confer on Omehia the right to be made a party in the case before the Court of Appeal, since no relief is sought against him in the case.
Chukwu has equally filed a similar application before the apex court, challenging Omehia’s inclusion in the case. Omehia has since responded to both appeals (by Amaechi and Chukwu) and urged the court to hear the case with dispatch.
But Omehia’s lawyer Nnoruka Udechukwu (SAN) stunned all in court at the last hearing, on October 3 this year, when rather than proceeding with the case, he sought an adjournment. He had accused the appellants of constituting delay in the case by filing separate appeals and applied that both appeals be consolidated.
Upon his application, the court consolidated the appeals. He was expected to proceed to move his motion when, surprisingly, he prayed for an adjournment.
Fagbemi objected to Udechukwu’s prayer for adjournment. He argued that an adjournment was needles since all processes relating to the appeals have been regularised.
“I have never seen a situation where somebody who is complaining of delay justice, will have the opportunity to move his motion, and said no, please put it for another day. That is the reason we opposed that application,” Fagbemi said.
The court, with Justice Walter Onnoghen presiding, granted Udechukwu’s prayer, but reluctantly. He said in a brief ruling: “In this appeal, we will grant the adjournment sought, though reluctantly, as this is a political case which ought to be heard expeditiously.”
Udechukwu told journalists later that Omehia is urging the Supreme Court to lump up all the issues raised and resolve them in the same appeal.
He said his client wants the apex court to also assume jurisdiction over the pending case before the Court of Appeal and decide it too to prevent a situation where parties will be required to go back to the appellate court after the Supreme Court’s verdict.
“If the Supreme Court determines that the Court of Appeal was wrong, then that ends the matter; there will be no need to go back to the Court of Appeal. But if the Supreme Court says that the Court of Appeal was right in granting leave to Omehia to appeal, then because of time factor; then the fundamental question is; what are the issues in contention, answer them and determine them, once and for all,” Udechukkwu said.
Fagbemi said: “Our position then was that we cannot conduct election in Rivers state because Amaechi, the governor, came in October 2007; that was the time he took the oath of office. If you reckon with that date, it means no election will be due until, may be two months to October. In order words, election could only come up around August and the Court overruled us.
“We appealed against that decision, now Mr Omehia who was not a party in the suit came and said he wanted to be joined in the matter as interested party. The question was; what his interest in this matter is.
“Omehia had contested under another party and exhausted all judicial remedy, but to no avail. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal granted him permission to appeal as an interested party. Amaechi became aggrieved by that decision of the appellate court to accommodate Omehia, thereby forcing him (Amaechi) to approach the Supreme Court to seek the nullification of the decision of the Court of Appeal. That in a nutshell is the crux of the matter,” Fagbemi added.
The case, no doubt, has thrown up a lot of posers, particularly in relation to what Omehia seeks to achieve. There is also the issue to the effect that, even if the court holds that the 2011 election would have been held on another date aside the April date, no one is currently contesting the fact that Amaechi won the election.
It has been contended that the argument by Omehia that the apex court should adopt its reasoning in the case of Peter Obi against INEC cannot apply here.
This, law experts argued, is informed by the fact that, unlike the case with Omehia and Amaechi, Andy Ubah and Obi were never members of the same party. No member of APGA (Obi’s party) that won the election was ever sworn-in before Obi took his oath of office. So, both cases, they argued, do not support each other.
Analysts are of the view that the case may end as an academic exercise after all. They cited a similar effort by Omehia in the past. To them, since the court exists to ensure the dispensation of justice and prevention of social disorder, it will refrain from accepting invitation to cause chaos in any society.
This position, they said, is informed by the possible constitutional crisis that may be occasioned should the apex court overrule the Federal High Court and order a re-run of the governorship election.
