Follow Us on Google
Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Supreme Court has reserved ruling on a motion challenging the competence of the appeal lodged by a faction of the Rivers State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC), led by the Minister of Communication, Rotimi Amaechi.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has already said the APC in Rivers has no candidate for the 2019 elections.
Justice Mohammed Datitjo, who led four other justices of the apex court, had, after listening to parties to the appeal, said ruling on the motion would be delivered on a date to be communicated to the parties.
The Supreme Court had, last December, adjourned till March 8, to determine the legality or otherwise of primary elections the APC conducted in Rivers State; for the purpose of nominating its candidates for the 2019 polls.
The appeal, marked SC/1070/2018, was lodged before the court by 22 chieftains of the party; led by one Abdullahi Umar.
The appellants, through their lawyer, Henry Bello, urged the Supreme Court to re-affirm the ruling it delivered on October 22, 2018, and nullify outcomes of the primary election that produced Tonye Cole and other candidates in the faction of the party loyal to Amaechi.
The appellants equally urged the apex court to dismiss a pending appeal marked CA/PH/198/2015, which, the said faction lodged before the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal.
But, the apex court reconvened, yesterday, about two months earlier than the planned date for delivery of its judgment in the suit.
The sitting, yesterday, was sequel to an application by the appellants requesting the Supreme Court to fast-track the judgment, in line with the provisions of the Fourth Alteration of the Electoral Act (as amended), which stipulates a 60-day timeframe for the matter.
Bello submitted that although the court ought to deliver its judgment before January 1, however, “the court cannot do anything because the matter has become statute barred.”
He prayed the court for leave to address it orally on the need for the apex court to deliver a judgment striking out the appeal, adding that the appellants’ motion of December 17, 2018, has been overtaken by the expiration of time.
However, Justice Datijjo, noted that outside the appellants’ motion, there is also the need for counsel to address the apex court on the competence of the appeal, adding that the Supreme Court will not be competent in the first place to sit on an appeal that arises from an incompetent appeal at the Court of Appeal.
In his response, Bello drew the panel’s attention to paragraph 4 of the Appeal Court’s record, wherein he submitted that the respondents did not oppose the motion of the applicants and urged the court to grant the relieves sought by the applicants.
“The order of the trial court is a consent order and specie of consent judgment,” he said. He therefore submitted that the appeal against the judgment of the trial court was not competent, and urged the Apex Court to so hold and strike out the appeal for being manifestly and grossly incompetent.
The apex court had on October 22, nullified an interim order of the Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt, which gave APC the nod to conduct its ward, local government and state congresses in Rivers State.
