TheNewsGuru

Tag: Judgement

  • Supreme Court rejects APC's suit to review Zamfara judgement

    Supreme Court rejects APC's suit to review Zamfara judgement

    The Supreme Court has rejected an application by the All Progressives Congress asking it to review its last judgment in which it voided the party’s participation in the last elections in Zamfara State.
    A five-man panel of the court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, in a ruling on Monday morning, struck out the application, argued by senior lawyer Robert Clarke (SAN).
    In an unprecedented judicial pronouncement last May, the Supreme Court awarded governorship, National Assembly and state Assembly elective posts to the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), by nullifying the participation of the candidates of the ruling All Progressives Congress in the 2019 General Elections.
    It then declared the party with the second highest votes as winners of the elections, making the PDP candidates beneficiaries by default.
    The APC members had been locked in judicial dispute over the legality of the primaries conducted.
    Since the verdict, the APC had nursed hopes that its members could salvage something from the electoral ruins. On June 24, the state chairman, Alhaji Lawali Liman said the branch was trying to ensure that candidates who were selected unopposed were removed from Supreme Court list.
    “We held a meeting recently with the party’s National Chairman in Abuja who informed me that our party has a window to challenge the action of the INEC following the Supreme Court ruling that nullified our election in the state.
    “Since the matter taken to the court centred on irregularities of primaries, we had 13 candidates for the state House of Assembly, three for the Senate and two for the House of Representatives”
    “These were those who contested unopposed and the primaries did not affect them.
    “INEC was too hasty to declare the party with the second highest votes because the exact directive of the Supreme Court was that the next party with the ‘requisite spread should be declared and by these, our issues were not taken into consideration,” Liman said.

  • Oyetola vs Adeleke: Police beef up security as Supreme Court delivers judgement tomorrow

    The Osun State Police Command, on Thursday, said security has been beefed up in the state to prevent any breakdown of law and order ahead of Friday’s Supreme Court’s judgment on the 2018 Osun governorship election.
    The command’s spokesperson, DSP Folashade Odoro, told the News Agency of Nigeria that the police are fully prepared for the outcome.
    “Officers have been placed on red alert and are pro-active to prevent any kind of violence or demonstration in the state.
    “We will, however, want to urge people of the state to maintain law and order and go about their lawful businesses without fear or intimidation,” she said.
    NAN reports that the Peoples Democratic Party and its candidate, Senator Ademola Adeleke, had challenged the victory of the All Progressives Congress and its candidate, Governor Gboyega Oyetola at the Osun 2018 Governorship Election Tribunal.
    The tribunal on March 22 declared Adeleke as the winner of the election, but the judgment was later overturned by the Appeal Court on May 9.
    The case has, however, moved to the Supreme Court for final judgment and the court is set to rule on the matter on July 5.

  • JUST: CCT fixes date for judgement in Onnoghen’s trial

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal on Monday fixed Thursday for its final judgment in the charges of false and non-declaration of assets instituted against Justice Walter Onnoghen, who reportedly resigned as the Chief Justice of Nigeria on April 4.

    The Danladi Umar-led three-man bench fixed the date for judgment after the prosecution led by Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN), and the defence led by Mr. Okon Efut (SAN), adopted their final addresses.

    During the proceedings, the defence, in their final arguments, maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the six counts beyond reasonable doubt as required by law and urged the tribunal to dismiss the case.

    Efut maintained that the statement made by Onnoghen to the Code of Conduct Bureau was not confessional as alleged by the prosecution.

    He added that the charges, were incompetent and unconstitutional as they were based on the provisions of the Code of Conduct Tribunal and Bureau Act which were in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

    But the prosecution said the defence team was only attempting to redefine what constituted “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”.

    He urged the tribunal to hold that the prosecution indeed proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and “return a guilty verdict”.

    Adjourning till Thursday for judgment, the tribunal chairman, said the verdict would be delivered along with two pending rulings on Onnoghen’s applications, one challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the case and another one asking the CCT chairman to disqualify himself from further presiding over the case for being allegedly bias.

  • Delta Central Senatorial Seat: Omo-Agege clarifies issues surrounding A’Court judgement

    Delta Central Senatorial Seat: Omo-Agege clarifies issues surrounding A’Court judgement

    Sen. Ovie Omo-Agege (Delta Central-APC) has restated that his reelection victory in the Feb. 23 National Assembly poll remained valid and legitimate.

    Omo-Agege, who represents Delta Central Senatorial District, said this on Monday in a statement signed and released on his behalf by Nath Dotie.

    Recall the Court of Appeal sitting in Benin, had on March 29, upheld the earlier judgment delivered by the Asaba Federal High Court which nullified the Jones Erue-led APC state executive committee.

    However, the senator who is contending for the post of the Deputy Senate President in the incoming Ninth Assembly insisted that not being a party in the Asaba matter, the Asaba judgment has no legal effect on him.

    Read full statement below:

    NOT A PARTY IN THE DELTA APC LEADERSHIP LEGAL TUSSLE, SENATOR OVIE OMO-AGEGE DID NOT LOSE ANY “APPEAL”.

    1.0. On March 18, 2019, Hon. Justice Toyin ADEGOKE of the Federal High Court, Asaba gave a judgment in Suit No: FHC/ASB/CS/76/2018 which supposedly recognised Chief Cyril Ogodo and persons under him as executives of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Delta State, instead of the present executives of the party led by Prophet Jones Ode Erue – executives duly recognised by the National Working Committee (NWC) of the APC. This judgment is in violent conflict with the valid, unchallenged and subsisting June 18, 2018 judgment of Hon. Justice Chikere of the Federal High, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ /CS/509/18 which validated, recognised and gave legal life to the Prophet Jones-led executives of the party – a judgment that the plaintiffs in the Asaba court have failed to set aside/appeal against.

    2.0. Although the narrow issue before the Asaba Court is the leadership question of the APC in Delta State and given that no contestant in the 2018 primaries of the party in Delta State was a party to the action, Justice ADEGOKE nonetheless made pronouncements that ostensibly touch on the rights of the contestants in the said primaries in their absence. Indeed, the said judgment seems to curiously target, for maximum harm, the rights of persons who were shut out of the case by questionable declinature of otherwise simple applications to join the action to defend their threatened rights.

    3.0. As it is, the APC and Prophet Jones (as Respondents) have filed appeals against Justice ADEGOKE’s judgment. Chief Great Ovedje Ogboru (APC’s Governorship Candidate in the 2019 General Election) has also filed an appeal to set aside the entire proceedings and judgment of the lower court on the ground, amongst others, of the Court’s perverse rejection of his application to be joined as a NECESSARY PARTY in the matter to allow him to defend his threatened interests. We commend the appellants who, apparently protecting the Abuja judgment as a PERMANENT LIGHTNING ROD OF DEFENSE against anarchy, nuisance, malevolence, rascality and corruption, now want the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s proceedings/judgment in their entirety.

    4.0. It is elementary that the Federal High Court, whether in Abuja or Asaba, is the same and of coordinate jurisdiction nationally. The Asaba Court has no appellate authority to override or set aside the valid, subsisting and final (being now unappealable) judgment of the Abuja Court. To the extent that the Asaba Court somehow clothed itself with false appellate power to review the Abuja judgment, including delving into questions of issues estoppel and re judicata, the Asaba judgment looms large as a deliberately orchestrated effort to concoct and stoke avoidable anarchy, as desired by sponsored agents of elements who are laboring to undermine APC’s interests in Delta.

    5.0. Without prejudice to the appeals already filed, it is our reasoned view that not being a party to the Asaba action, Delta State APC’s candidates in the 2019 General Elections, including the Most Distinguished Senator Ovie Omo-Agege – who just won a major strategic re-election for the APC in Delta State and now a leading but humble contender for the High Office of the Deputy Senate President (DSP) of Nigeria – are NOT and CANNOT be bound by in personam pronouncements in the Asaba judgment. This position of the law has clearly crystalized over the years in a plethora of landmark judicial pronouncements, including:

    a. NDP v. INEC, wherein the Supreme Court, per FABIYI, JSC, declared that, “Judgment made with order against a person who was not a party to a pending suit is to no avail. It cannot be allowed to stand.” [2013] 6NWLR (PT 1350) 392;

    b. PDP v INEC & ORS, wherein the Court of Appeal, per TSAMMANI, JCA, put it with clarity that, “It is the Law that, a Court or Tribunal has no power to make an order which affects the interest of any person or persons who is or are not parties to the case or dispute before it. Where such order is made it will not be binding on such parties, and is also liable to be set aside at the instance of such parties.” [2011] LPELR – 8831 (CA);

    a. OKONTA v. PHILIPS, wherein it was stated that: “A court has no jurisdiction to make an order which affects the interest of person who has not been joined as a party. The fundamental reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is to make him bound by the result of the action.” (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1225) 320; and

    b. KOKORO-OWO v. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT, wherein the Supreme Court, per BELGORE, JSC, also stated without ambiguity that: “A party to be affected by a decision must not be left out of the action because no Court will make an order against any person who has not been heard or given opportunity to be heard.” [2001] 11 NWLR (PT 723) 237.

    6.0. Yes, consistent with the clear position of the law, the Distinguished Senator Ovie Omo-Agege has stated repeatedly that not being a party in the Asaba matter, the Asaba judgment has no legal effect on him. This position was pretty much validated when the Appeal Court, Benin declined his recent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO JOIN the appeals in the spirit of camaraderie to give more intellectual teeth to the appeals – appeals that will most likely terminate at the Supreme Court. Although not different from what happened in the OKONTA case (above), the wise Noble Lords of the Court of Appeal declined the APPLICATION FOR JOINDER (not an APPEAL). It is however noteworthy that this declinature has nothing whatsoever to do with the substantive appeals, but there are fake news and mischievous media hysteria that give a false impression that an ‘APPEAL’ was lost!

    7.0. Finally, maybe it needs to be said that to the extent that all Delta APC candidates in the 2019 General Elections are directly or indirectly connected to the judicially approved executives of the party under Prophet Jones (vide the valid, binding, unchallenged and subsisting Abuja judgment), their candidacies remain intact and cannot be questioned, except by a final judgment of a superior court setting aside the same Abuja judgment. As of today, that seems an impossibility.

    Signed:
    NATH DORTIE
    For: The Office of Distinguished Senator Ovie Omo-Agege
    National Assembly, 3-Arms Zone, Abuja

  • NLNG/NIMASA: Dakuku hails Appeal Court judgement

    NLNG/NIMASA: Dakuku hails Appeal Court judgement

    …Affirms Agency’s Confidence in Judiciary

    The Director General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Dr. Dakuku Peterside, has hailed the appeal court judgement in the case between the Agency and the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) Limited over levies payable to the maritime regulator, saying it has reaffirmed confidence in the Judiciary.

    The Court of Appeal in Lagos on Friday set aside an earlier judgement of the Federal High Court, which had exempted NLNG from the levies, on the grounds that NIMASA was not given fair hearing at the lower court. Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, who delivered the judgement, ordered that the case be sent back to the high court for fresh trial under a different judge.

    Reacting to the ruling, Dakuku said NIMASA remained law abiding and will continue to work closely with the judiciary in matters that need clarity and interpretation.

    He said, “This judgement has further shown that the judiciary is unbiased and remains a beacon of hope for Nigerians. On our part as a responsible Government Agency, we will continue to work closely with the judiciary and other stakeholders to ensure that we realise our mandate of creating a robust maritime sector in line with best global practices.”

    Dakuku further stated, “NIMASA and NLNG are neither foes nor competitors. We are corporate cousins working together for the common good of our great country. Judgements like this only serve to strengthen our institutions and ensure greater bonding.”

    The Agency had in 2010 commenced an action against NLNG, wherein it sought for an interpretation of relevant provisions of the Nigerian LNG (Fiscal Incentives, Guarantees and Assurances) Act, CAP N87, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, and the NIMASA Act of 2007. In January 2013, the action by NIMASA was withdrawn in a bid to amicably settle the dispute out of court.

    Consequently, in May 2013, NIMASA requested NLNG to pay all statutory Levies accruable to the Agency, including the 3% levy on gross freight on inbound and outbound international cargo, 2% Cabotage levy and Sea Protection levy, stating that the NLNG was not exempted from payments of statutory levies after its tax holiday ended many years ago. Following the continued disregard of the provisions the NIMASA Act and other relevant laws by the NLNG, their vessels were detained for non-compliance.

    Upon agreement between both parties, on July 12, 2013 before Honourable Justice Idris Mohammed of a Federal High Court in Lagos, NLNG agreed to pay outstanding levies attributable to the Free on Board (FOB) and cabotage vessels if the companies fail to make payment to NIMASA within 3 months from Friday July 12th 2013. The NLNG also agreed to continue to pay all applicable levies in line with the NIMASA mandate. The court order also gave NIMASA liberty to collect levies directly from Free on Board (FOB) and cabotage vessels without recourse to NLNG.

    In a surprising twist, the Agency received a pre-action Notice on the 18th of June 2013 from Counsel to NLNG, giving a thirty (30) days notice of their intention to commence legal action in accordance with Sections 53(2) of the NIMASA Act. Hearing of the substantive issue continues after which the Federal High Court ruled in favour of NLNG.

    Dissatisfied with the judgement of the Federal High Court by Justice M. B. Idris delivered in the case between NIMASA and the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, (NLNG), the Agency appealed the matter in October, 2017.

    NIMASA action is in line with its enabling law, the NIMASA Act 2007. Section 15 (a) of that Act, stipulates, “The Agency shall be funded by monies accruing to the Agency from the following sources: 3 per cent of gross freight on all international inbound and outbound cargo from ships or shipping companies operating in Nigeria to be collected and paid over to the Agency to meet its operational cost.

    Section 2 (1) of NIMASA Act states, “This Act shall apply to ships, small ships and crafts registered in Nigeria and extended to ships, small ships and crafts flying a foreign flag in the Exclusive Economic Zone, Territorial and Inland Seas, Inland Waterways and in the Ports of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

     

     

  • Adamawa guber dispute: Court concludes hearing, fixes judgment for Friday

    The Adamawa State High Court on Thursday concluded hearing on a suit filed against the Adamawa State governorship election and fixed Friday March 29 for judgement.

    The candidate of the Movement for the Restoration and Defence of Democracy (MRDD), Rev Eric Theman, had gone to the court immediately after the March 9 governorship election that he was denied the right to be voted for as his party logo was not on the ballot paper for the election.

    He asked the court for an injunction stopping the conduct of a rerun already announced at the time after the main election was declared inconclusive. He also asked the court to declare the main election null and void for the same reason that he was not duly entered for the election after he fulfilled all requirements for inclusion.

    The court promptly granted his request of injunction against the rerun, which stayed until the same court lifted it on Tuesday, following which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) fixed Thursday, March 28, for the rerun which was in progress as this story was filed Thursday afternoon.

    The court Thursday heard arguments for and against the originating motion seeking the annulment of the March 9 election from plaintiff and defence counsels, and adjourned judgement to Friday.

    Counsel to INEC, Bar Stephen Ibian, had argued, among other things, that the MRDD did not get to the ballot paper because the candidate did not nominate a running mate for the election. He said the necessary forms of INEC in respect to the MRDD showed that the party did not sponsor a running mate.

    “The reliefs sought constitute an academic exercise and not grantable,” he concluded.

    Defending MRDD’s motion, however, the counsel, Bar Mustapha Ibrahim, told the court that the MRDD did present a running mate to the governorship candidate but that the documents INEC was tendering had a vital page missing, which he said amounted to withholding of evidence.

    “It is inconceivable for INEC to receive form 001 (as it did) and not Form 002 because they come together,” Bar Mustapha Ibrahim said, urging the court to grant the reliefs his clients sought as the reliefs were well grounded.

    The trial judge, Justice Abdulaziz Waziri, who had been emphatic since Tuesday that the week would not end without him delivering judgement on the case, brought Thursday’s session to a close a little after 1pm, urging counsels who had not provided details of all authorities for the cases they cited in their arguments to do so by mid afternoon so he would have time to conclude the writing of his judgement against Friday.

    The judgement could have a telling effect on the ongoing governorship election process. If he annuls the election, it will bring the process to zero level, although the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Rt Hon Umaru Fintiri, who are parties to the case and have always questioned the jurisdiction of the court over the case, will be certain to appeal such a judgement.

  • Excess campaign spending: Court fixes date for judgement on Buhari, Atiku’s disqualification

    Excess campaign spending: Court fixes date for judgement on Buhari, Atiku’s disqualification

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, has adjourned until May 7, a suit seeking the disqualification of President Muhammadu Buhari and the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Atiku Abubakar from the presidential election over alleged excess spending on campaigns.

    The presidential candidate of the National Rescue Movement, Mr Usman Ibrahim-Alhaji dragged the duo to court alleging that they both spent over N1 billion each on campaign expenses in the presidential elections.

    Ibrahim-Alhaji prayed the court to invoke Section 91(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 to nullify the participation of Buhari and Atiku in the February 23 presidential election for allegedly violating the Electoral Act 2010.

    The plaintiff through his counsel, Mr Ezekiel Ofou alleged that by spending over N1 billion each, Buhari and Atiku had violated the electoral law and were liable to be removed as contestants in the election.

    At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, Ofou informed the court that he had served the processes on Buhari and Atiku through substituted means as was ordered by the court on March 5.

    He, however, acknowledged that even though they were yet to respond, according to the law, they had up till 30 days within which to respond.

  • Tribunal fixes date for judgment in Osun governorship dispute

    The Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal sitting in Apo, Abuja has scheduled Friday for judgment in the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the September 2018 governorship election held in the state, Senator Ademola Adeleke.

    PDP and Adeleke are, by their petition, challenging the declaration of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The date for the judgment was communicated to parties via hearing notices sent to them on Tuesday to that effect by the tribunal’s secretariat.

    Tribunal Chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo had, on March 7, after parties adopted their final written addresses, announced that judgment in the case would be reserved till a later date.

    Justice Sirajo said parties will be informed, at least, 48 hours before the date of delivery of the judgment.

    Wole Olanipekun (SAN) appeared for Oyetola; Akin Olujinmi (SAN) represented the APC while Lasco Pwahomdi appeared for INEC on March 7.

    The petitioners’ legal team was led by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN).

    In adopting their separate final addresses, Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Pwahomdi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioners have failed to prove their case.

    On his part, Ikpeazu urged the tribunal to uphold the petition and grant all the reliefs prayed by the petitioners.

    Olanipekun, while adopting his final address, noted that the petition was full of confusing claims and betrayed the petitioners’ lack of understanding of the nation’s election petition jurisprudence.

    In identifying what he described as the many contradictions in the petition, Olanipekun noted that “in pages 37, 38 and 39, the petitioners are presenting a different case entirely from their pleadings. The petition is a bedlam of confusion.”

    Olanipekun noted that the petitioners have admitted breaching the electoral law by seeking that some of their votes be quashed.

    He added: “They are also asking the tribunal to quash some of their votes. A self-confessed petitioner, who has in writing, admitted infringing the law, cannot be asking to be returned as a winner of the election.

    “In their relief seven, they want the court to nullify the certificate of return, but they failed to present the certificate before the tribunal. Where is that certificate? Can the tribunal nullify what is not before it?

    “They said the certificate of return is with us. If it is with us, should they not have given us a notice to produce it? They did not give us notice to produce,” Olanipekun said.

    He relied on a decision of the Court of Appeal given on Wednesday in the motion filed by the presidential candidate of the PDP, Atiku Abubakar and urged the tribunal to decline the petitioners’ prayer to void the guideline issued by INEC for the conduct of the election.

    In similar argument, Olujinmi faulted the evidence given by 63 polling agents called as witnesses by the petitioners.

    He noted that, though the petitioners called 80 witnesses in all, 63, who were polling unit agents gave common evidence by saying similar things and using almost exactly the same words.

    Olujinmi also argued the the evidence by the petitions’ 74th witness, who was the state polling agent, amounted to hearsay evidence because he admitted getting the information from the documents submitted to him.

    He urged the tribunal to ignore the various documents tendered by the petitioners, which he said they merely dumped on the tribunal without demonstrating their link to the case.

    Olujinmi also noted contradictions in the case of the petitioners and the evidence they led.

    He noted that while the petitioners want the tribunal to declare them winner of the first part of the election held on September 22, 2018 and void the supplementary election held on September 27, 2018, their 74th witness said they have no cause of action as it relates to the election of September 22, 2018.

    Ikpeazu, in his counter argument, urged the tribunal to disregard the issues raised by the respondents’ lawyers.

    He faulted the written addresses by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, which he argued, were not filed as required by law.

    Ikpeazu said there was no confusion as it relates to the case of the petitioners. He said the respondents’ claim of existence of confusion betrayed their misunderstanding of the case.

    Ikpeazu said the petitioners’ case was that, based of the result of the election of September 22, the 1st petitioner, having satisfied provision of Section 179(2) of the Constitution, ought to be declared as having won.

    He faulted the respondents’ argument that the petitioners dumped documents on the tribunal.

    Ikpeazu argued that the petitioners have effectively demonstrated all the documents tendered, including the certified true copies of the result sheets, which he said, were riddled with alterations.

    He queried the powers of INEC to alter election results and urged the tribunal to grant the petitioners’ prayers.

  • Court fixes date for judgement on Wike’s alleged birth certificate forgery case

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed March 8 to deliver judgement in a suit seeking to disqualify Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State from contesting the March 9 governorship election.

    The Plaintiff, Elvis Chinda filed the suit in 2018 praying the court to interpret certain sections of the Electoral Act.

    Chinda, specifically sought interpretation to the sections which dealt with presentation of forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by aspirants seeking clearance to contest elections.

    When the matter was called on Tuesday, counsel to the plaintiff and respondent adopted their written addresses and adumbrated on their respective positions on the matter.

    The plaintiff’s counsel, Achinike William-Wobodo urged the court to determine whether the birth Certificate (Statutory Declaration of Age) attached to Mr Wike’s Form C.F.001 presented to INEC, was forged.

    He urged the court grant the reliefs sought by his client because “a document that lied against itself is forged.”

    The counsel said as at 1986 when the certificate was allegedly obtained, Obio/ Akpor Local Government Areas of Rivers was not in existence.

    William-Wobodo said the local government in question was created in 1989 by Decree No 12 of 1989, two years after the alleged forgery was committed.

    He also alleged that Wike had maintained consistency of the forged document and had presented same to the election commission in 1989.

    He alleged that the plaintiff obtained the document from INEC just a week before he filed the action, so the issue of being statute barred did not arise because he had brought the action within time.

    On his part, counsel to INEC, Wale Ajayi, did not respond to the plaintiff’s originating summons but filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.

    He urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction.

    Wike’s lawyer, Ferdinand Orbih (SAN) also prayed the court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

    He said the suit was statue barred, as it was filed outside the 14 days allowed by the fourth alteration to the 1999 Constitution as amended.

    Orbih also argued that the deponent of said the forged certificate of birth was not joined in the suit.

    Justice Ekwo, after listening to the submissions of counsel, adjourned the matter until March 8 for judgment.

  • Rivers APC reacts to Appeal Court judgement allowing it to field candidates

    Rivers APC reacts to Appeal Court judgement allowing it to field candidates

    The Rivers State chapter of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has officially reacted to a court judgement on Monday afternoon granting a stay of Execution on the Judgement of Justice Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court which nullified all Primaries of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and also restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from fielding the Party’s Candidates in the forthcoming 2019 elections.

    The party in a statement signed and released by its spokesperson, Chris Finebone said the judgement vindicated the party in the state.

    Read full statement below:

    WE HAVE BEEN VINDICATED – RIVERS APC

    The Appeal Court sitting in Port Harcourt today (Monday, 4th of February, 2019) has granted Stay of Execution on the Judgement of Justice Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court which nullified all Primaries of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and also restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from fielding the Party’s Candidates in the forthcoming 2019 elections.

    We have always said that the wheel of justice may grind slowly, sometimes annoyingly slowly, but surely justice comes ultimately. We believe that today’s judgment has vindicated APC in Rivers State.

    Now, anyone who has carefully and painstakingly followed our pending matter at the Supreme Court, especially, during the last sitting before the apex court reserved ruling, will easily and safely conclude that our victory at the Supreme Court is only a matter of time. The key issues of REPRESENTATION and JURISDICTION which Justice Chiwendu Nworgu deliberately overlooked in tailoring his judgment to fit into a predetermined purpose, and yet bandy it as a CONSENT judgment, will be completely deconstructed by the excellent legal minds on the Supreme Court bench. In this particular case, the end will justify our dogged efforts as we shall, once again, prevail by God’s grace!

    All Rivers APC faithful should remain resolute as we are set to recover all that Satan has battled so hard to take away from us.

    INEC, by today’s Appeal Court ruling, should by now be reinstating our candidates’ names on the ballot in line with the status quo before the pronouncement by the federal high court of Justice Omotosho.