The Federal High Court in Uyo has pronounced that parties in the Akwa Ibom Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship tussle should expect judgement on or before 28th November 2022.
Justice Agatha Okeke said this on Friday after counsels involved in the matter adumbrate and adopted their final written addresses before the Court.
Akan Okon, the plaintiff and a PDP aspirant in the Akwa Ibom governorship race had prayed the court to declare PDP candidate Umo Eno unqualified due to certificate forgery and fake voters card.
In his response, the lead legal adviser to Umo Eno, Usoro Usoro (SAN), submitted his substance in line with the provisions of the Constitution being superior to any other law. Usoro thereafter asked the court to dismiss the case and impose some level of deterring cost against the plaintiff.
“The Constitution does not impress additional qualification. So, nobody has the right to impress it. The cases I cited in court said so very expressly. It said, No other law in Nigeria can introduce anything beyond what the Constitution has stated.”
The incident of the alleged submission of fake voter cards by Umo Eno was also debated as a qualification criterion in the party’s primary.
Usoro, SAN argued on the provisions of Section 84(3) of the Electoral Act, “Qualifications of Aspirants and Candidates. (3) A political party shall not impose nomination qualification or disqualification criteria, measures, or conditions on any aspirant or candidate for any election in its constitution, guidelines, or rules for nomination of candidates for elections, except
as prescribed under sections 65, 66, 106, 107, 131, 137, 177 and 187 of the Constitution.”
Counsel for Akan Okon, Okey Amechi, SAN explained that the law allows the Voter’s card in the nomination guidelines. He cited section 84(14) and two types of qualifications stipulated by the Constitution.
Amechi rode on the strength of Section 84(14) which stated that, “(14) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.”
A Lagos-based lawyer, A. J. Owonikoko, SAN has earlier warned that Section 84 of the newly amended Electoral Act could be an albatross. “Section 84 of the Act was, therefore, identified as a goldmine for lawyers but a landline for undiscerning politicians.” Owonikoko admonished in an online publication, www.vanguardngr.com.
Outside the courtroom, Amechi pointed out certain irregularities of the defendants on WAEC result acquisition and his assurances of victory.
“We have proved that some of the things he submitted, certificates. They go and paginate certificates, have you seen where they paginate certificates? One of the letters they tendered that WAEC wrote said that the man took the exams in a different school, Victory High School 1. The testimonial said he attended Victory High School 2.”
On the voter’s card Amechi explained that Umo Eno faulted the valid nomination process for being sponsored by a political party.
“Section 84(14) said the party must choose you according to guidelines. If a party fails to comply with the guidelines then that selection becomes a nullity.”
Meanwhile, INEC counsel Barr. Emmanuel Eze told the court that INEC never refused to tender the voter register as alleged by the plaintiff’s counsel.
“After Continuous Voters Registration, INEC will certify new records after uploading new registration into the INEC register for the election. This will be certified and made public for the 2023 general elections.
” We did not file anything because INEC is an electoral umpire. We saw this thing as an intra-party matter. So, INEC will not join issues with them.
Eze argued outside court that the plaintiff never applied to know the authenticity of Umo Eno’s voter’s card.
Amechi, SAN was still not comfortable with the INEC lawyer’s oral submission. He had asked the Court to expunge it because Eze did not file any written address or testify orally. Amechi thus requested the court to regard Eze as “a lawyer and not a party in the case.”
Akan Okon was present in the court with many of his supporters while Umo Eno was not in court but rather represented by his defence counsel and some media aides of the governor.
