Court Takes Decision In Ruling On Motion Seeking To Jail INEC Chairman

Court Takes Decision In Ruling On Motion Seeking To Jail INEC Chairman

Justice Mohammed Madugu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Bwari, has deferred a ruling on a motion seeking to detain the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, for allegedly disregarding a court decision issued on June 6, 2023.

The motion arose from a lawsuit against INEC and Victor Oye, identified as FCT/HC/CV/4068/2023, filed in April 2023 by Otunba Camaru Lateef Ogidan (National Vice Chairman, South West Geopolitical Zone, APGA) and Mustapha Rabiu (National Welfare Officer). They emerged from the APGA Owerri Convention of May 31, 2019, under the leadership of Chief Edozie Njoku.

Both respondents (Oye and Yakubu) are facing charges for allegedly flouting a Supreme Court judgment delivered on March 24, 2023, which affirmed Chief Njoku as the rightful National Chairman of APGA. They are also accused of ignoring the Court’s interim injunction of May 10, 2023, which directed parties in the suit to maintain the status quo ante bellum until the suit was resolved.

Read Also BREAKING: Big Revelation As Muhammad Nami Reacts After Tinubu Sacked Him As FIRS Boss

On June 6, the court ordered INEC to implement the Supreme Court judgment recognizing Chief Njoku as the National Chairman of APGA. However, INEC continued to recognize Oye as National Chairman and monitored an unauthorized convention in Awka. They also listed Mr. Sylvester Ezeokenwa as the party’s National Chairman and fielded purported candidates for upcoming gubernatorial elections in Imo, Kogi, and Bayelsa States.

Frustrated by the alleged disobedience to the court order, the Plaintiff/Applicant filed separate committal charges against Yakubu and Oye. At the hearing, Mike Ajara and Panam Ntui appeared for the Plaintiff/Applicant, while Alhassan Umar (SAN) and Mr. S. O. Ibrahim (SAN) appeared for Prof. Mahmood Yakubu.

Umar notified the Court of their preliminary objection filed on September 14, which he argued. In response, Ajara clarified that the motion pertained to a single contemnor because “the noncompliance with the judgment of the court is different.”

Regarding the argument that the matter is already pending at the Court of Appeal, Ajara stated, “It is true that once it is evidence that a matter is on appeal, the Court of Appeal is seised of the matter.”

Ajara further contended that a declaratory order or judgment cannot be appealed because it has no coercive effect or threat. He asserted that no documents indicating an appeal had been entered were presented.

In turn, Umar urged the court to dismiss Ajara’s submission that no appeal had been entered. He emphasized that any document attached to an affidavit requires no certification and emphasized that INEC is neutral in the matter.