Appeal Court’s Decision On Umahi Forces Abuja Judge To Shift Judgement On Ayade’s Defection To APC

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday was packed full in anticipation of judgement in the suit filed against Cross River governor, Ben Ayade, who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress.

Judgement was slated for today but Justice Taiwo Taiwo requested to be addressed by counsel on an Enugu Court of Appeal judgment on Ebonyi Governor Dave Umahi, who was also sued for cross carpeting to the APC.

A mild drama however occured in court when Ayade’s lawyer, Mike Ozekhome SAN, in a bid to explain a point, walked away from his seat to argue.

But the PDP lawyer, Emmanuel Ukala SAN, stood up and expressed displeasure at Ozekhome’s movements before Justice Taiwo Taiwo

Ozekhome replied that lawyers have their different “skills” when making an argument for their client.

THE WHISTLER reported that the suit challenging the defection of Governor Ayade from the PDP to the APC was instituted by the PDP in 2021.

Emmanuel Ukala SAN, had urged the court to order the Independent National Electoral Commission to receive fresh names from the PDP over the alleged illegality of Ayade’s defection to the APC.

He sought the following reliefs:

“A declaration that in view of the provisions of section 221 of the Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the democratic system of governance operated in Nigeria, votes at the election and elections are won by political parties and not their candidate or the candidates sponsored at the election by the political parties”.

“INEC should immediately receive from the plaintiff (PDP), the name of its candidates to replace the 3rd and 4th defendants (Ayade and Esu) for the purpose of utilising the lawful votes cast in favour of the plaintiff or in the alternative directing the 1st defendant to hold a gubernatorial election for Cross River State in accordance with Section 177 of the Constitution
excluding the 3rd and 4th defendants who are disqualified from participating in the election by virtue of Section 192 (1) (b) of the Constitution) arising from abandonment of the majority lawful votes and the offices occasioned by the action of the 3rd and 4th defendants by reason of their becoming members of the 2nd defendant who did not win majority of the lawful votes cast at the election”.

At the resumed sitting on Wednesday which was scheduled for judgement, Justice Taiwo said he would have read his verdict on the matter but needed to be briefed on the Court of Appeal decision in Enugu.

The appellate court in Enugu had struck out a suit by an APC governorship aspirant which sought the removal of Ebonyi Governor Umahi for his defection to APC.

Justice Taiwo then directed the lawyers in the case to go ahead and address the court on the appellate judgement.

Lawyers Blow Hot

Ukala SAN, confirmed that he received an invitation from the registrar to address the trial court about the judgment of the court of Appeal.

According to him, “the judgement of court applies as judicial precedence only for the point that they apply.”

He argued that Pages 2 and 3 of the said judgment, showed that the APC governorship aspirant plaintiff had 3 reliefs for interpretation in that case, adding “they are not the same with the reliefs in the present case which has 17 substantive reliefs.”

He contended that the issues for determination are fundamentally different from the case that was decided by the Court of Appeal.

“In particular my lord, the very core provisions of the constitution which the plaintiff have submitted to this court were not subject of the case at the appellate court.

“The entire judgement of the Court of Appeal made no reference to Section 1 Sub Section 1 of the Constitution as well as Section 1 (2) of the 1999 Constitution.”

He explained that the Section maintains that the Constitution is supreme and binding on all authorities in Nigeria.

“The inhouse internal affairs that was filed by the APC cannot and did not submit this sections at the Court of Appeal because they wanted to avoid consequences .

“We have drawn attention of the court to Section 180(1D) in other to determine the consequences of the action of those who defected.”

He urged the judge to determine whether a person should continue to hold office after he resigns or seizes to hold office.

“They are not similar in terms of what they sought to interprete,” he argued.

He held that the PDP’s case is that defection constitutes vacation of office since one cannot be an independent candidate or rule any part of Nigeria with minority votes.

“Political parties provide the platforms and manifesto that any government must run on, you don’t shake that off.

“Whose manifesto is Ayade running with, APC or PDP? APC that was rejected by the people of Cross River?” he asked.

He maintained that judicial precedence means that courts should maintain a line of decision; saying that it is not a means through which parties avoid a case unfavorable to them

“It is Chief Mike Ozekhome who drew the attention of the court to the judgement of the Court of Appeal, he said adding that the APC was already a party in the Abuja Court case since 2021 but their members went and arranged a different case in Ebonyi.

He further said that his client was not a party at the Appeal Court, Enugu and as such, that particular judgement cannot be binding on the PDP.

“Judicial precedence is limited to the parties involved.

“We urge my lord to hold that the case at the Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu cannot affect the circumstances of the case filed by the PDP.”

INEC Supports Enugu Court Appeal Verdict

The counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission, Anthony Onyeri, told the trial judge that the Enugu Court of Appeal decision was similar to the one before him.

“It is true that INEC the first defendant, is a neutral body, but as a commission, our understanding is that this case is similar to the judgment and subject matter of the court of Appeal.”

He said by verdicts of superior court, an executive officer cannot vacate his seat on account of defection or cross carpeting.

“We ask my lord to bow to the doctrine of stairi decisis (judiciary precedence),” he said.

Ayade’s counsel Speaks

Meanwhile, Mike Ozekhome SAN argued that the Court of Appeal decision in Enugu which backed the defection of Umahi still applied to the case by the People’s Democratic party.

He argued that it is not votes of party faithfuls that gives an aspirant electoral victory, adding that non-partisan members voted too.

“They have the votes of Cross River people not the votes of the PDP.

“No one can say that his right was not covered by a superior court decision,” Ozekhome said.

He further insisted that the appellate court did not consider defection as a novel issue.

He drew the attention of the judge to some pages of the court of Appeal decision which addressed some facts presented by the PDP before the trial court in Abuja.

He argued that the Supreme court says defection is immoral, painful but not illegal.

“May the day never come where the Supreme court has made a decision on defection and a lower court says otherwise.”

He admitted that even though he hates defection from one party to another, the constitution is supreme.

“So when I hear people talk about defection.

“I don’t like defection but we must operate the law as it is not as it should be,” he said.

He opined that if PDP were angry with Ayade, they can do a memorandum so that the National Assembly can consider their grievances in the ongoing constitution amendment.

“I urge my lord to abide by the Appeal Court judgment and dismiss the plaintiff’s case with cost,” he said.

” Judgement will be delivered tomorrow, April 7, by 12pm,” Justice Taiwo said.

After the case was adjourned, Ukala SAN told the judge that it was not fair for Ozekhome to use some words like ‘arrangee’ , ‘compromise’ and ‘unfair’ in response to his submission.

Ozekhome replied that he did nothing wrong but later apologized to Ukala for the infraction.

“I apologize and I withdraw” my comments, he said.