A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Thursday, restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the incumbent governor of Abia State, Theodore Orji, as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) gubernatorial candidate in the April polls, pending the determination of a suit challenging his victory at the party’s primary.

Justice Gabriel Kolawole gave the order while ruling on the ex parte application brought by a PDP gubernatorial aspirant in the state, Chief Ikechi Emenike, against the PDP, the acting national chairman of the party, Dr  Bello Mohammed, INEC and Governor  Orji.

Out of the eight prayers sought by the plaintiff, only three were granted and these are:

•An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from recognising, or submitting to the 3rd defendant the name of any person other than that of plaintiff and his nominated running mate in the person of Dr Chukwuemeka C. Okwuonu as candidate of 1st defendant for the office of governor and deputy governor of Abia State respectively in the 2011 general election, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

•An order of interim injunction restraining the 3rd defendant, its agents, servants or privies from accepting or giving any recognition to any other candidates apart from plaintiff/applicant and his nominated running mate in the person of Dr  Chukwuemeka C. Okwuonu, as gubernatorial and deputy gubernatorial candidates of the 1st defendant in the 2011 general election into the office of the governor of Abia State, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

•An order of interim mandatory injunction compelling the 3rd defendant to keep open and extant the slot of 1st defendant as one of the political parties entitled to contest and have their names and logo (symbol) on the ballot paper for use in general election 2011 for the office of the governor of Abia State pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

The court had, on February 1, when the motion ex parte was heard, ordered both the PDP and INEC to come and show cause within 72 hours why the reliefs sought by the plaintiff should not be granted in his favour, just as he ordered that the respondents be put on notice.

When the matter came up on Thursday, the plaintiff’s counsel, Chief Niyi Akintola SAN, argued that the respondents had failed to obey court’s order by not complying with the directive to appear before the court to show cause why his client’s reliefs should not be granted, adding that the respondent rather served on him the processes that should have been brought before the court out of time.

Chief Akintola said that the process was served on him in court and in view of that, the court could not hear them because they were not ripe for hearing as he has the constitutional right to reply within 48 hours.

He, therefore, urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff since the respondents have failed to show cause why the reliefs should not be granted as earlier ordered by the court.

Counsel for the PDP, Chief Olusola Oke, while conceeding that the returns which was ordered by the court, had been filed out of time brought a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit arguing that the application takes priority over all other pending application before the court.

He urged the court to take the application first so as to determine whether it has jurisdiction or not.

In his own submission, counsel for Orji, Dr Uzo Ezeoku SAN,  filed a counter affidavit and a written address opposing the interlocutory injunction, adding that the 4th respondent is  the candidate whose name has been submitted to the electoral body by the PDP.

He  raised a preliminary objection  to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, urging the court to take the preliminary objection first before going ahead on other applications before it.

Replying on points of law, Chief Akintola submitted that the respondents were misconceiving the issue of jurisdiction, stating that there was a subsisting order of the court which the respondents had not responded to and had not sought leave to regularise their process.

Comments (0)

Show/hide comments

Show/hide comment form

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment