BINANI: Lawyers Clash As Court Lifts Order Barring INEC From Prosecuting Suspended Adamawa REC Hudu Yunusa-Ari

Justice Donatus U. Okorowo of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday removed the order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from arraigning or commencing trial of the suspended Adamawa Resident Electoral Commission, Hudu Yunusa-Ari, at the state High court.

The order came after the court stood down proceedings following a shouting match between Senator Aisha Binani Dahiru’s lawyer, M.K. Aondoakaa (SAN) and that of the electoral umpire, Rotimi Jacobs SAN.

THE WHISTLER reported last week that Justice Okorowo ordered INEC, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Inspector General of Police to maintain “status quo” in its plan to prosecute Hudu.

The interim order followed a motion exparte filed by the All Progressive Congress (APC) candidate for the Adamawa governorship election, Senator Binani.

She sought the court’s interpretation of whether INEC can charge or arraign Hudu Yunusa-Ari, the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) deployed for the Adamawa State election, when a Tribunal sitting is ongoing on the outcome of the gubernatorial election.

In her motion marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/935/2023, her lawyer, M.K. Aondoakaa (SAN), filed writ of summons seeking interpretation of Section 144 and 149 of Electoral Act 2022.

Section 144 and 149 of the Electoral Act 2022 reads, “The Commission shall consider any recommendation made to it by a tribunal with respect to the prosecution by it of any person for an offence disclosed in any election petition.

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, any defect or error arising from any actions taken by an official of the Commission in relation to any notice, form or document made or given or other things done by the official in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act, or any rules made thereunder remain valid, unless otherwise challenged and declared invalid by a competent court of law or tribunal.”

INEC, in a statement issued by its spokesman, Festus Okoye, had said: “As provided by Section 145(1) of the Electoral Act 2022, an offence committed under the Act shall be triable in a Magistrate Court or a High Court of a State in which the offence is committed, or the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Furthermore, Section 145(2) of the Act provides that a prosecution under the Act shall be undertaken by legal officers of the Commission, or any legal practitioner appointed by it.

“Having reviewed the case file from the Police which established a prima facie case against Barr. Hudu Yunusa Ari, the Commission has filed a six-count charge against him at the Adamawa State High Court sitting in Yola.”

But Binani had urged the court to restrain parties in the interim so that INEC can come and show cause why Hudu, her star witness at the Adamawa Tribunal, should be prosecuted when the Tribunal sitting is ongoing.

In his ruling last Monday, Justice Okorowo had ordered parties to maintain “status quo ante bellum(the state existing before the war), that is, halt any further action on the election pending today, Tuesday, which was scheduled for INEC to show cause why the motion exparte should not be granted.

At the resumed hearing, INEC’s lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs SAN told the court that Andoakaa failed to serve him with the originating summons or the main suit for the past seven days, knowing full well that the electoral umpire was scheduled to arraign Hudu this Thursday.

He added that even though he had replied Andoakaa’s processes, he tried misleading the court by saying he had been served.

Andoakaa stood up saying that all the processes were served on the parties including INEC’s counsel and if his staff did not bring it to his knowledge, it is unfortunate.

Binani’s lawyer told the court to take note that the subject matter was the REC who is his witness at the state Tribunal in Adamawa.

“We did not mislead the court,” he insisted.

The court eventually found out that INEC counsel was not served with the originating summons as stipulated by rules of court.

Jacobs then rose up to find out from the judge if his order barring INEC from arraigning Hudu had elapsed.

He urged the court to put it on record that the “status quo” order had elapsed.

Andoakaa raised objection, saying since “how can you say that the order should be vacated when you have not shown cause?.”

Jacobs replied that it was only in Nigeria that a lawyer will try to do things without following rules of court.

Andoakaa interjected, saying he should not cast aspersion on him, being his senior in the legal profession.

“I am casting aspersions on you,” Jacobs responded, raising his voice.

“Something is wrong with you! You can’t paint me black!,” Andoakaa replied.

Justice Okorowo was unable to restrain the duo so he stood down the proceedings for five minutes, directing them to come to an understanding on his interim order.

When the court resumed, both lawyers apologized for their reactions especially before junior counsels.

But Jacobs informed the court that he was just served with the originating summons after the order had elapsed.

“That means, they (Binani) are interested in the order, not in the hearing of the case. That order cannot be extended,” Jacobs continued.

He said the court should not extend the lifespan of the order because he had told the high court in Adamawa state to shift Hudu’s arraignment to Thursday due to his interim order.

But Andoakaa insisted that the “status quo” order should be extended till they come and argue the case.

The judge held that the issue of competence and jurisdiction have been raised in the process by INEC and he was not inclined to extend the order.

However, Justice Okorowo noted that the senior lawyers failed to agree on whether Hudu should be arraigned pending the case or not.

“This case is adjourned to July 23. There is no order of this court extending the lifespan of this order on status quo,” Okorowo held.

Recall that in another Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, before Justice Inyang Ekwo, it had on April 26, dismissed the application filed by Binani Dahiru, which claimed that the Independent National Electoral Commission cannot nullify the results declared by the State Resident Electoral Commissioner, Hudu Yunusa.

She had withdrawn the matter citing internal party issues.

THE WHISTLER reported that Binani had on April 16 accepted the result declared in her favour by Hudu even though he announced her winner without reading out the actual scores for each candidate as enshrined in the Electoral Act 2022.

Yunusa had walked into the collation center after the supplementary election was suspended on Saturday and announced Binani winner drawing widespread criticism.

But INEC National declared the announcement a nullity.