Justice Mohammed Madugu of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Bwari has reserved ruling on a motion seeking to imprison the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Prof Mahmoud Yakubu for disobeying a court judgment delivered on June 6, 2023.

The motion emanated from a suit against INEC and one Victor Oye, marked: 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), who emerged at the APGA Owerri Convention of May 31, 2019, under the leadership of Chief Edozie Njoku.

Both respondents (Oye and Yakubu) are standing trial for disobeying a Supreme Court judgment delivered on March 24, 2023, which had declared Chief Njoku as the rightful National Chairman of APGA and also for ignoring the Court’s interim injunction made on May 10, 2023, which ordered parties in the suit to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the suit.

On June 6, the court in its judgment ordered INEC to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court which had recognized Chief Njoku as the National Chairman of APGA. Yet, INEC continued to recognize Oye as National Chairman of APGA. Also INEC monitored the illegal convention at Awka and pasted the name of one Mr. Sylvester Ezeokenwa as the party’s National Chairman, and went on to field names of purported candidates for the party for the coming governorship elections in Imo, Kogi and Bayelsa States.

Miffed by the disobedience to the court order, the Plaintiff/Applicant filed separate committal charges against Yakubu and Oye. At the definite hearing of the motion marked M/11847/2023, filed against the INEC Chairman, Mike Ajara and Panam Ntui announced the appearance 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. Reacting, Ajara told the court that the instant motion was against one contemnor because “the noncompliance with the judgment of the court is different.

On issue two that the matter is already pending at the Court of Appeal, Ajara said, “It is true that once it is evidence that a matter is on appeal, the Court of Appeal is seised of the matter. Ajara submitted that a declaratory order or judgment cannot be appealed because it has no coercive effect or threatens someone.

“Assuming without conceding, there is nothing before the court to show that an appeal has been entered. “The Court of Appeal is a public place, and any document emanating from that court for it to be admissible must be certified as provided in sections 89, 90 and 102 of the Evidence Act.

“My lord, it is very clear that the Respondent has not appealed and the time for them to do so has long expired.

“It will be far overreaching that the respondent who by its conduct has shown clearly that it is okay with the judgment of the court and who has shown that it is an unbiased umpire as aptly represented by its counsel, who represented the Respondent on the proceeding of 14th July, that they are observers and have no personal interest.

“In the circumstance, the only duty of the respondent as a responsible and law-abiding citizen is to comply and obey the order of the court.

“The judgment in contention was delivered on June 6, 2023, and no matter how wrong or right an order is, it must be obeyed until set aside. “Every party is under a duty to obey a valid court order.

“In the interest of justice, I urge this court to refuse and dismiss the objection, as this court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion one way or the other” Ajara submitted.

On his part, Umar urged the court to discountenance the submission if Ajara that there is no appeal entered. “Any document attached to an affidavit requires no certification. “The Respondent (INEC) is neutral and does not have anything personal in the matter” Umar stated. (Daily Independent)

Update news