THE case between the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Nicholas Ukachukwu, a PDP factional governorship candidate for the November 16 election in Anambra State, has been transferred to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
The presiding Judge, Justice Ejembi Eko, has also struck out an application by Mr. Bontu Onuigbo, setting to be joined in the matter between Ukachukwu and the PDP for lack of merit.
Justice Eko at the court’s sitting on Friday observed that since there was a motion filed at the Supreme Court by counsel to the governorship candidate, Prince Nwafor Orizu, requesting that the judges of the Appeal Court should disqualify themselves from hearing on the matter, the appellant court would reserve judgment pending the decision of the apex court.
Meanwhile, the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, Friday fixed Monday, October 14, 2013, to hear a suit, seeking to nullify all elections conducted during the last special convention of the Peoples Democratic (PDP) held on August 31 in Abuja. The date was disclosed vide a hearing notice issued by the court to parties in the matter. A firm, Bedding Holdings Limited (BHL), that is contesting the alleged unlawful use of its patented ballot boxes for the elections, initiated the suit.
Justice Eko said: “Since the judgment of this court has not been delivered, the reserve judgment is now awaiting the ruling of the Supreme Court on the motion to stay on further proceedings.”
The judge expressed dismay at the conduct of the respondent’s counsel throughout the proceedings of the matter. He further urged the counsel to consider himself fortunate for not being cited for contempt by the court.
Orizu also prayed the court to disqualify the counsel to the PDP, Joe Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), from appearing in the case and allow them to go home and settle.
It would be recalled that the PDP had appealed the recent judgment of a Federal High Court in Port Harcourt as delivered by Justice Suleiman Aliu, which recognised Ukachukwu as the authentic governorship candidate of the party and not Tony Nwoye whose name, the party has submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The counsel to INEC, Prof. Andrew Chukwumerie, told journalists after the court’s decision to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court that the Commission as a law-abiding institution would abide by the decision of the court.
“Our reaction is that the Court of Appeal has given its ruling. We are bound by the ruling. So, we will go to the Supreme Court and see what has been filed and make our response. The ruling went against our position; we don’t think that it is correct. Then, we are bound by it. Their lordships have given their positions, and that position remains the position of the law in this matter, unless and until the ruling is reversed or affected in anyway.”
Orizu told journalists that while the decision of the court was in conformity with the norm of practice, he did not deserve to be cited for contempt having done nothing unprofessional.
“The position now is that the judgment the Court of Appeal is supposed to deliver in respect of this case, which could have been delivered today (Friday) has now be adjourned sine dine, pending when we finish at the Supreme Court. I have appealed to the Supreme Court that the question I was talking about disqualification of their lordships is still valid; and that of the counsel, that they should not sit over our matter.
“If this court is now going on to give a decision in a matter in which they said they should be disqualified, what if the Supreme Court agrees with us? That is the basic thing. I have to thank their lordships for maintaining the norm; they did what is the right thing.
“You heard the judge talking of my being lucky, not to have been cited for contempt. I wish to reiterate that I have nothing against anybody. I know I have done nothing to deserve being cited for contempt,” he added.
BHL’s main claim is that by virtue of Orders six and seven contained in an earlier judgment by the court, declaring it the sole patentee of transparent and collapsible ballot boxes in the country, the use of such boxes without its consent renders the purpose for which the boxes were used a nullity.
The judgment was delivered on June 5, 2012, by Justice Adamu Bello in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/82/2011 between BHL, Registrar of Patents, Federal Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Industry and six others.
Order six of the judgment reads in part: “Any action or actions whatsoever and howsoever taken or purported to have been taken by the defendants relating to the said products without the prior and express license, consent, authority and/or approval of the plaintiff is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful and is therefore null and void.”
Order seven restrained the Registrar of Patents and its agents from registering or issuing the plaintiff’s valid and subsisting patent over the ballot boxes to any person or organisation except with the consent of BHL.
The plaintiff stated that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was a party in the suit on which the judgment was given, and that despite being aware of the court’s orders, deployed the same ballot boxes for use at the PDP convention without its (BHL’s) consent, thereby disobeying the judgment.
Named as respondents in the suit include President Goodluck Jonathan, Vice President, Namani Sambo, Senate President David Mark, House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal and Chairman, PDP Board of Trustees, Anthony Anenih.
Others are the PDP’s National Chairman, Bamanga Tukur; Professor Jerry Gana (who acted as the Chairman, PDP special convention committee); and Ken Nnamani (who was the Chairman, PDP electoral committee).
Also named as respondents are Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan of Delta State (who acted as Chairman, PDP Essential Electoral Materials Committee); Chairman, Police Service Commission, Mike Okiro (who served as Chairman, PDP Special National Convention Sub-Committee on Security); the INEC and its Chairman, Prof Attahiru Jega.
The plaintiff is urging the court to determine whether “by the combined construction and interpretation reliefs six and seven of the valid and subsisting judgment of June 5, 2012 the respondents could use its patented ballot boxes or its imitation for the PDP special congress without its consent?”
It also urged the court to determine whether, if it answers the above question in the negative, the elections conducted in the congress are unconstitutional, unlawful and stand null and void, in view of the fact that the respondents allegedly used its patented ballot boxes fraudulently without first seeking and obtaining its consent as required by the judgment?
BHL wants the court to declare that the respondents ought not to have used its ballot boxes for the PDP congress without its consent.
It is equally praying for a declaration that the elections conducted during the congress are unconstitutional, unlawful, fraudulent and stand null and void in view of the fact that its patented ballot boxes were allegedly used fraudulently for the elections, without its prior consent and in violation of the subsisting judgment.
Comments