Unending Crisis in Anambra PDP Judgement
Anayo Okolie writes on the crisis in the Anambra State chapter of Peoples Democratic Party
The January 29 Supreme Court judgement was supposed to put an end to the prolonged crisis bedevilling the Anambra State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party. But the joy of the recognised Ejike Oguebego faction of the party, which the judgement favoured, was put on hold. Before the general election last year, Oguebego and Emakayi were both laying claim to the party’s state chairmanship. But the Federal High Court ruled that the Oguebego-led executive was the only constitutionally recognised faction.
Justice H.A. Ngajiwa of the Federal High Court had in a judgement in the suit FHC/PH/CS/2013 (now FHC/AWK/CS/247/2013), delivered on September 12, 2013, affirmed Oguebego and members of his team as constituting the authentic executive committee of the PDP in Anambra State.
The judge refused the prayer by the plaintiffs asking the court to recognise a former state chairman of the party, Ken Emekayi, and some others as the authentic PDP executive in Anambra State.
But in defiance to the order made by Ngajiwa directing INEC and the PDP to only “recognise and deal” with only the Oguebego-led executive, the PDP went ahead to set up a caretaker committee, which organised primaries that submitted the list containing the names of Senator Andy Uba and Senator Stella Odua, the sacked Senator Uche Ekwunife, and rest of the legislators as its candidates.
INEC obeyed the order and published the names of candidates that emerged winners in the primary election conducted by Oguebego and monitored INEC. But weeks later, the Court of Appeal in Abuja set aside the Federal High Court judgement and affirmed the Emekayi’s faction of the state executive committee.
Oguebego and another member of his state executive committee, Chuks Okoye, appealed against the judgement. PDP, INEC and another member of the party in the state, Chukwudi Okasia, were joined in the suit as respondents.
A five-man panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, unanimously affirmed an earlier verdict delivered by Justice Evoh Chukwu of the Federal High Court in Abuja on December 15, 2014, which had affirmed the Oguebego-led executive committee of the party, along with the primaries conducted by it, and its list of candidates that emerged from the exercise.
Ruling in favour of Oguebego on January 29, Justice John Okoro, who read the lead judgement of the apex court, upturned the verdict of the appeal court on the grounds that its decision was based “on a wrong appreciation of the claim of the appellants before the trial Federal High Court.”
Okoro ruled, “Having resolved all the five issues in favour of the appellants, I hold that there is merit in this appeal, which is hereby allowed. The judgement of the Court of Appeal is hereby set aside.
“The order of the Federal High Court I Suit No FHC/PH/CS/2013 now Suit No FHC/AWK/ CS/247/2013), recognising the Ejike Oguebego-led Executive Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party, Anambra State chapter is still subsisting until it is set aside by another court.
“I hereby award costs of N100, 000 against the first and third respondents in favour of the appellants.”
According to Mr. Chris Uche, counsel to Oguebego, “The Supreme Court judgement has effectively restored the list of candidates upheld by the Federal High Court.”
Confusion
But INEC claimed that the January 29 judgement was confusing and decided to approach the Supreme Court for clarification. Ruling on an application filed by INEC seeking clarification and consequences of the judgement, Okoro held that the judgement by its ordinary meaning did not need to be subjected to any clarification.
Uche said the ruling had cleared the way for his clients to benefit from the judgement delivered on January 29. He said when the Federal High Court gave the ruling on the issue, INEC complied immediately without seeking for clarification and when the Court of Appeal over turned the decision of the Federal High Court, the same electoral body complied with the appellate court’s decision without seeking for any clarification.
“I am surprised that the same INEC has found it difficult to act on the Supreme Court decision of January 29 the way it acted on the decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal,” Uche said.
INEC had never denied the fact that it removed the names of candidates sent to it by the recognised PDP leadership in Anambra State because of the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which judgement has now been set aside by the Supreme Court.
The Oguebego-led PDP, who accused INEC of being biased against the candidates it lawfully forwarded to it in the execution of various court judge- ments on the leadership of the party, urged the INEC chairman to do the right thing in accordance with the oaths of office he took to the effect that he would do “the right thing to all manners of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
Uche added that should the INEC chairman be in doubt as to the implications of its refusal to issue its candidates their certificates of return, it had attached the ruling of the presiding justice of the Supreme Court on the day the issue of clarification of the apex court judgement was rested, Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, to guide him.
The eight-paragraph ruling signed by Justice Ngwuta specifically read: “The judgement of this court delivered on January 29, 2016 does not require any interpretation. This court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement of the court below, which had set aside the judgement of the Federal High Court in favour of the appellants. The said judgement of the Federal High Court was restored.
“In any case, the reliefs sought in the motion did not relate to or emanate from the judgement of this court delivered on 29th January, 2016 in appeal no 37/2015. When the Federal High Court granted the plaintiffs (now appellants) reliefs, the 2nd respondent (INEC) did not seek interpretation of the judgement of the high court before it published the list submitted to it by the appellants as the candidates in the 2015 general election for the National Assembly.
“The respondents then appealed to the court below and the said court set aside the judgement of the Federal High Court. The 2nd respondent (INEC) did not seek interpretation of the judgement of the court below before it withdrew the appellants’ list, which it had earlier published on the order of the Federal High Court.
“Why would the same 2nd respondent, now applicant (INEC), ask for interpretation of the judgement that merely allowed the appeal which set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgement of the Federal High Court delivered in favour of the appellants (now respondents in the motion?)
“There is nothing to interpret in the judgement of this court. If the 2nd respondent (now applicant) needs interpretation, it is the restored judgement of the Federal High Court that it should interpret and not the judgement of this court, which restored same. From the above and the fuller reasons in the lead ruling, I also strike out the application for want of jurisdiction.”
Nigerians are watching with keen interest to see how INEC would resolve the prolong tussle.