By Chukwuemeka Njoku, Abuja
The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Monday reserved ruling on the competence of the appeal filed by the Rotimi Ameachi led faction of the Rivers State Chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The appeal marked SC/1070/2018, was lodged before the court by 22 chieftains of the party led by one Abdullahi Umar.
The appellants, through their lawyer, Henry Bello, had urged the Supreme Court to re-affirm the ruling it delivered on October 22, and invalidate the outcome of the primaries that produced Tonye Cole and other candidates in the Amaechi led faction.
Also, the appellants equally asked the apex court to dismiss a pending appeal marked CA/PH/198/2015, which the said faction lodged before the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal.
The apex court had last December adjourned till March 8, 2019 to determine the validity or otherwise of the Rivers APC primaries conducted in the state for the purpose of nominating its candidates for the 2019 general elections.
However, a five man panel led by Justice Mohammed Datijo, fixed ruling on a date to be communicated to parties after listening to the submissions of counsel in the matter.
After taken submissions from counsel in the matter, Justice Datijjo announced that ruling on the competence of the appeal has been reserved to a date that would be communicated to parties.
Yesterday’s sitting by the apex court followed an application by the appellants requesting the court to fastrack the judgment in line with the provisions of the 4th Alteration of the Electoral Act which stipulates a 60 days time frame for the matter.
Bello had submitted that though the court ought to deliver its judgment before January 1, however “the court cannot do anything because the matter has become status barred”.
He therefore prayed the court for leave to address it orally on the need for the Apex Court to deliver a judgment striking out the appeal, adding that the appellants motion of December 17, 2018, have been overtaken by the expiration of time.
However, Justice Datijjo, noted that outside the appellants motion, there is also the need for counsel to address the Apex Court on the competence of the appeal, adding that the Supreme Court will not be competent in the first place to sit on an appeal that arises from an incompetent appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Responding, Bello drew the panel’s attention to paragraph 4 of the Appeal Court’s record, wherein he submitted that the respondents did not opposed motion of the applicants consented and urged the court to grant the relieves sought by the applicants.
” The order of the trial court is a consent order and specie of consent judgment “, he said. He therefore submitted that the appeal against the judgment of the trial court was not competent, and urged the Apex Court to so hold and strike out the appeal for being manifestly and grossly incompetent.
Respondents counsel, Lateef Fagbemi SAN, however drew the court’s attention to the fact that there are two different appeals; the first, on the interlocutory injunction and the other after the judgment in the substantive suit. He said the appeal after the substantive suit has been struck out by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it was an appeal against a consent judgment.
He said the appeal before the court is not a consent judgment, as the dispute over representation was not resolved by the lower court.
He further submitted that the matter before the Apex Court is not a preelection matter as what is been challenged is the election of officers to the wards, local government and state Congresses of the APC.
