By Nduka Edede Chisom
On June 16, 2021, Alhaji Rabiu Garba Aliyu, an indigene and resident of Jigawa State, approached the Jigawa State High Court and sought relief from the court to be declared the acting national chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). His contention was that he, rather than Chief Jude Okeke, was the rightful person for the seat, following the suspension of Chief Edozie Njoku by the National Executive Committee of the party on June 15, 2021.
Upon service of the processes, Okeke, through his counsel, responded to the suit on June 24, 2021. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which was sued as the second respondent, also filed their response and the case was argued.
Justice Musa Ubale, before whom the case was filed on June 30, 2021, gave his judgment in the case and found in favour of Okeke as the rightful chairman of the party with powers to conduct governorship primaries of the party, including that of Anambra State, which the plaintiff sought as his right to conduct.
Barely a week later, on July 6, 2021, Chief P.I.N. Ikwueto, on behalf of Chief Victor Oye and APGA, filed a notice of appeal and also a motion seeking leave of the court to appeal as an interested person. Also, Chief Edozie Njoku, the national chairman whom the plaintiff claimed was suspended by the NEC of the party, acting through Chike Onyemenam, also filed his motion seeking leave to appeal as an interested person on July 22, 2021.
The plaintiff in the suit filed his own appeal through Chibuzor Ezike on June 30, 2021, the same day the judgment was delivered.
The courts in Nigeria being on their annual vacation and the case being an election-related case, the president of the Court of Appeal set up a panel of three justices, headed by Hon. Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani. Other members of the special appeal panel were Justice Usman Musale and Justice Abdullahi Ridwan Maiwada.
On July 29, 2021, when the matter came up for hearing of the appeal, the court listed all three appeals, being the appeal by the plaintiff and the two motions seeking leave of court to appeal as an interested person.
Chief Wole Olanipekun, leading the team for Oye, had his matter called up first and he argued his motion fervently praying the court to grant the application and allow them to appeal.
While moving his motion, he referred to a second affidavit, which he said was filed on July 26, 2021, wherein he exhibited a fresh copy of a notice of appeal of 15 grounds and withdrew the former notice of appeal filed on July 6, 2021, with only four grounds of appeal.
Hence, having withdrawn the earlier notice of appeal and relying on the fresh one, the earlier notice of appeal was bound to be struck out. After arguments, the court adjourned to July 30, 2021, for ruling.
The second matter called up was that of Chief Njoku. However, the court, to ensure it possessed the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, asked counsel in the matter to address it if it had jurisdiction based on the provisions of Section 285(11) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. It went on a recess for an hour for counsel to prepare for the address. The court resumed and, after taking all arguments, also adjourned for ruling on July 30, 2021. The panel then proceeded to hear the appeal by the plaintiff and, after arguments had been taken, adjourned the matter sine die for judgment.
On July 30, 2021 in a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal panel granted the prayers of Chief Oye and APGA by granting leave for them to appeal and also gave timelines for filing and exchange of all processes.
In the second ruling of the day, the panel unanimously again held that the case before it was a pre-election matter and by the requirements of the Constitution, the appeal ought to be filed within 14 days. It cited Section 285(11) of the Constitution as being binding on the court.
Also relying on the expanded interpretation of Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution of the Supreme Court authority in APC v. Umar & Ors (2019) LPELR- 47297, the court held that the issue in the trial court though being on the issue of who becomes the chairman of the party with powers to conduct the primaries of the impending Anambra governorship election was a pre-election matter and the appeal ought to be filed within 14 days. It then correctly struck out the motion of Njoku for being incompetent.
Knowing that courts are bound by their judgments or orders in similar situations, it is very difficult if not impossible to see how the same panel could hold in the application of Njoku that the matter is a pre-election case and then hold otherwise in the appeal by Oye on the same judgment.
It is also from the same point of view that one would ask if it would be possible for the court to strike out an appeal filed on July 22, 2021, for being filed out of time and then allow the one filed on July 30, 2021, on exactly the same judgment as not being out of time. There can be no justification for that.
In the appeal now filed by Oye, he largely contended on two grounds that the Jigawa State High court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain that the matter if adjudged by the court to be a pre-election matter and also the suit at the high court was filed outside the 14 days provision since the cause of action arose on May 31, 2019, when the national convention of APGA was conducted.
But on a closer look, one would find that the contention of parties at the High Court was on the national leadership of the party, which was in contention and wherein the plaintiff asked for relief that he be declared chairman, and not the first defendant and that the court should nullify all actions of the defendant to conduct the primaries in Anambra and hand over such powers to him. This is the leg of the suit in the High Court that squarely made the matter a pre-election matter as was held in the case of APC v. Umar & Ors (Supra).
Also being an issue which borders on the national leadership of the Party which is an intra-party matter, any High Court of a state has requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter. APGA being a national party and having offices in all the States of the Federation and also the second defendant, INEC having offices in all states of the federation, the Jigawa State High Court, which is in the state of residence of the plaintiff was correctly clothed with the territorial jurisdiction to determine the matter.
Furthermore, on the argument that assuming without conceding that the matter was a pre-election matter that the matter at the High Court was filed after fourteen days the cause of action arose, the cause of action being May 31, 2019, national convention of the party held in Owerri, it can be said that this argument is a very wrong interpretation or understanding of the contention at the High Court.
The contention was the appointment of the first defendant, Okeke, as acting national chairman by the NEC of the party on June 15, 2021, and the suit was filed on June 16, 2021, and all the responses were filed within time and judgment delivered within the constitutionally provided time for judgment to be delivered in a pre-election matter.
The contention was never about the convention of the party held in Owerri as being argued by Oye and his legal team. So, the argument on territorial jurisdiction is baseless and being pursued by emotion and not law, especially by those who have read manipulated newspaper reports, instead of reading the affidavit to detect the real cause of action.
What was before the Jigawa High Court was a suit filed by a party member and indigene of Jigawa challenging the appointment of Okeke as acting national chairman of APGA, not about Anambra governorship primary or the winner. Anambra was not the issue here. The issue was about an intra-party dispute brought by a Jigawa indigene who claimed to be an official of APGA and wanted to stop Okeke from being the acting chairman, and Okeke defeated him. Okeke is the victim here, not the aggressor. Okeke was dragged to court in Jigawa, he did not go to Jigawa on his own.
Therefore, it can be rightly said that the Jigawa State High Court APGA leadership judgment is a historical pre-election case that complied with rules of territorial jurisdiction while resolving APGA’s endless crises and the self-inflicted woes.
It still remains inexplicable why the legal team of Oye withdrew their valid notice of appeal to rely on an invalid one. That reason, we may or may never know.
•Chisom is a lawyer and director at the Center for Justice, Equity and Due Process Compliance