Thursday, 28th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search
Breaking News:

Enugu PDP: Supreme court begins hearing on gubernatorial primary five years after

By Lawrence Njoku (Enugu)
12 June 2016   |   2:01 am
The 2011 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship pre-election case in Enugu State came up for hearing at the Supreme Court, last Monday. The issue is currently unsettling the party.

court

The 2011 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship pre-election case in Enugu State came up for hearing at the Supreme Court, last Monday. The issue is currently unsettling the party.

The case involved Chief Alexander Obiechina; the immediate past governor of the state, Sullivan Chime and the PDP.  Obiechina had won the January 9, 2011 governorship primary of the party in the state, but three days after, January 12, another primary had held at Okpara Square, where Chime also won.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and officials of the party from the national headquarters supervised both primaries. This happened during the tenure of Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, as the national chairman of the party. While Obiechina had taken the matter to court to determine the rightful candidate to stand for election that year, Chime secured the party’s ‘endorsement’ that enabled him run and won the governorship election for the second term in 2011. Obiechina’s grouse is that he was the rightful candidate of the party. He added that the court should declare him rightful winner and that whatever action taken by PDP after the vexed primary was wrong, null and void until the matter is decided. Since then, the matter had dragged from one court to another.

And while Chime, who was a direct beneficiary of the imbroglio and contentious primary had served out his tenure, the Supreme Court has insisted that it would hear the matter and had commenced hearing the case at Abuja.

Hearing on the matter, which came up last Monday could not continue since some of the parties claimed they were not served. The Panel Chairman, Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, before adjourning the matter had frowned at the development. While apologising to the parties involved,promised to inquire on why the processes were not served and also to apportion necessary sanctions.

However, at different locations in the state, there are worries on why a matter that took place five years ago should suddenly resurrect at the apex court.  While many insist the case is time-barred, others say it was within the appelant’s right to conclusively pursue the matter.

A lawyer, Mr. Chijioke Egwu, said: ‘’A pre-election case in court becomes academic once a period of four years lapses and another person is elected into same office through a general election. This is because the office under which the appellant seeks to serve has become spent.’’ He said further that the courts have dismissed different cases like that because ‘’the courts do not entertain cases that have no utilitarian value to appellants and thus do not entertain academic questions or suits.’’

He insisted that what Obiechina is asking for has been overtaken, stressing that ‘what will it amount to should the court pronounce tomorrow that he actually was the rightful candidate produced for the 2011 governorship election and not Chime? Will that invalidate the fact that Chime was a governor, are you going to recreate 2011 and ask him to contest election? I think that morally there should be an end to litigations. People should not set the template backward for any reason. He should go and rest and join others in rebuilding the party.

“The issue here is pre-election primary of a political party and not the main election. Again, the constitution, as amended has also taken care of the fact that unless you participate in a process, you cannot be a beneficiary of it. He did not go beyond a primary and we also know that during the time, the PDP was in turmoil with the existence of two factions. He wanted to come from a faction, which fell under another superior faction. To me, it will amount to wasting the time of the court for anybody to entertain this matter. Is he saying that the court should reverse the victory of Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi for him, when he did not participate in the 2015 governorship election? He queried.

A Constitutional lawyer, Dr. Henry Osigbemhe, countered his views. He reasoned that pre-election cases in courts are not time barred generally, especially when viewed from reliefs being sought in the court.

He said the period between when a person is elected Governor and the date he shall take his Oaths of Office is constitutionally indeterminate. It can be within days, months and even up to six years or more after being elected Governor, particularly if he has a case in the court preventing his taking the Oaths of Office.

There is nothing in the 1999 Constitution and our extant laws that make taking his Oath of Office time barred. If you reason otherwise, where is the provision in our Constitution or laws that barred him. Though, the party contested and won elections, the Constitution donated the tenure of four years to the person who in the eyes of the law is the candidate of the party that won the gubernatorial or presidential election and not to the party itself.”

“There is no provision in our Constitution that donated the tenure of four years to the parties, despite that they sponsor all the candidates. If however, the governor takes his Oath of Office and for any reason he is removed from office immediately, his tenure has started and shall end four years from the date he took the Oaths of Office.”

Contacted, Obiechina insists that, “as far as this matter has not been determined, anybody occupying governor’s office in Enugu from the PDP is doing so illegally. However, we are waiting for the Supreme Court to do justice to this”

0 Comments