Enugu: Petition To Stop Peter Mbah’s Swearing-in As Governor ‘Perplexing’,- Ikpeazu SAN

Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu, the lead counsel for the Enugu State governor-elect, Mr Peter Mbah, says the application seeking the state governorship election petition tribunal to stop the swearing-in of his client on May 29 ‘is peplexing and an aberration to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’.

Ikpeazu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, stated this in an interview with THE WHISTLER in the premises of the tribunal on Friday.

Advertisement

He was referring to a petition by the Action Democratic Party seeking non-swearing-in of Mbah.

The legal luminary said, “Seeking to restrian Mr Peter Mbah from being sworn in on May 29 is a constitutional aberration. Unfortunately, they applied for adjournment for additional affidavits.

“We cited many decisions, in our written response, to the effect that the office of the governor is not perishable. Just like what happened in Anambra State in the Peter Obi case, when you win, you begin to serve your four years’ tenure without detriment to what transpired before. It is perplexing that the petitioners are asking for that.”

ADP’s counsel, Ozor Alex Amujiogu, told our correspondent that, “Our motion, seeking the court to restrian the swearing-in of Mbah is clear in the constitution. Swearing him is similar to allowing him to steal a match. We submitted our affidavit, and they responded with a counter-affidavit. We have three days to respond.

Advertisement

“They can give a ruling next Friday. The respondent must not be in a hurry to be sworn in on May 29. The constitution never said it must be on May 29th.

“When a matter is in court, it should not be rushed. Citing the case between Obi and INEC, the court ruled that both parties maintain the status quo. The parties involved have submited themselves to the court. The matter should not be rushed.”

Recall that constitutional lawyer Aloy Ejimakor earlier stated that Nigeria’s constitution did not stipulate that the president-elect and indeed winners of the 2023 elections must be sworn in on May 29.

He argued that those whose victories are being contested should not be sworn in until court verdicts.

Quoting him, “If the result declared by INEC does not accord with the Electoral Act, it then follows that such result does not, ipso facto, accord with the Constitution, because the Electoral Act is a product of (and subservient to) the Constitution – the grundnorm. The river never flows backwards. Thus, any repugnancy in the Electoral Act must yield to the demands of the Constitution.

Advertisement

“Thus, by virtue of the preceding Section 1(2) of the Constitution, inaugurating a new President on May 29 while the Court (as the final umpire) is yet to call the final result would mean that persons (or a group of persons) have taken control of the Government of Nigeria in a manner that does not accord with the Constitution.

“If a new President is sworn-in on May 29 and subsequently, the Tribunal or the Supreme Court (again: the final umpire) invalidates the election, what would you say happened to the Government of Nigeria during the period the sacked President held office before the final judgment?”

Leave a comment

Advertisement