Ikpeazu’s Victory Brings Equity to Abia State
Equity was a frequent hook on which Ukwa-Ngwa hung its case for the zoning of Abia State 2015 governorship slot to it. Abia Charter of Equity was another armour that was brought to the contention. With the election over, victory won, Theo Nkire, pioneer A
Ukwa-Ngwa appear happy over the victory of Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu, first at the election, then the tribunal?
We do not just appear happy; the entire Ukwa Ngwa nation is indeed overwhelmed with happiness by the victory that produced Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu as the first Abia governor of UkwaNgwa origin. This is the highest political office to which an Ukwa-Ngwa man has been elected all through history; whether in Eastern Region, East Central State, Imo State or since the creation of Abia State in 1991. Ukwa-Ngwa area has nine of the 17 Local Government Areas that make up Abia State. It is home to more than 60 per cent of the population, and it did not produce a governor until now. The founding fathers of Abia State were indeed great statesmen. They could foresee a situation where fairness could be neglected. This is why they laid down a foundation for fairness and equity in the rotation principle they enshrined in the Abia Charter of Equity. Without the charter, the principle upon which the State was founded would have been in doubt. Ukwa Ngwa people are very happy today. If each of us (and there are about two million of us) was equipped with a thousand voices, I know we cannot thank God enough; but we thank him all the same and we shall sing his praise all the days of our lives from generation to generation. We shall never tire nor grow weary. We shall always remember that it was on the 3rd day of February 2016 that the Lord turned the captivity of Zion to victory. He saved us from the snare and smear of the enemy and saved us from reproach. The reverse is unimaginable.
Our story is like that of the Israelites out of Egypt. For years, Moses pleaded with Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go. For years, Pharaoh defied God.
It was great too that his opponent had a chance to challenge the victory at the tribunal. We are happy that we won. Our happiness centres on the privilege of being alive to witnessed a struggle our elders initiated in 1943.
What is the significance of the victory?
Our victory defies all explanations except to demonstrate the power of God over the evil machinations of men. Apart from that, our victory brings equity; it brings justice and it brings fairness to the land and to Abia State. The efficacy of equity is demonstrated to the full. We can add that patience and persistence paid off at the end. We learnt how to remain steadfast and build our case on facts, agreements and documents like the Abia Charter of Equity and the Constitution.
The Abia Charter of Equity is a child of circumstance. After the two Senatorial Districts of Aba and Umuahia of old Imo State decided to seek a State of their own, disagreement arose between the two brothers that led to the breakaway of a large majority of the Aba people to form the Aba State Movement then led by Dr. George Wigwe. The Abia Charter of Equity was a fence mending measure to reassure the Aba group that the events that led to the breakup would never arise again. Indeed, the Abia Charter was extracted from the Umuahia (Bende) group led by Dr. M. I. Okpara by what remained of the Aba (Ukwa-Ngwa) group. After the breakup, Chief B. A. Wachuku was made Vice Chairman to Dr. Okpara and Dr. Moses Agbara became Secretary. These were measures to re-assure Ukwa-Ngwa of their place in the proposed State. The Charter enshrined the principle of equity in distribution of political office and leadership and clearly stated that the position of Governor will rotate between the Aba and Bende zones of the State. Unfortunately, this agreement was more honoured in breach until Governor Theodore Ahamefule Orji decided that what is fair is fair and that the peace and development of Abia State required that equity and fairness be respected. He is a man who saw it fit to honour the Abia Charter of Equity, which others chose to break with impunity.
How did the Ukwa-Ngwa nation react to Otti’s victory at the Court of Appeal? What was the crux of the matter at the Court of Appeal in Owerri?
There was a pre-trial session where all parties to the dispute agreed on the number of days they would need to call witnesses and present their case. The intention was to facilitate the conclusion of the case within the 180 days the law stipulates. All parties to the matter agreed to the arrangement. Otti’s men were assigned seven days; Ikpeazu’s were given nine. However, midway through the course of the presentation of their case before the electoral tribunal, Alex Otti’s counsel applied to the tribunal for extension of time to call more witnesses. By then, they had almost run out of the time allotted to them. Counsel said they needed the extra time to call witnesses to prove their case. Ikpeazu’s counsel objected to the extension and the tribunal ruled that it was not extending time for any of the parties.
Otti went to the Court of Appeal in Owerri where he pleaded with the Court to give him time to call more witnesses to prove his case. Not allowing him more time, he claimed, would rob him of his constitutional right to fair hearing since he was yet to prove his case. Ikpeazu argued that it was mere waste of time to renege on an agreed arrangement that would ensure determination of the case within the 180 days the law prescribed.
On what did the Court of Appeal in Owerri base its decision against Otti in the interlocutory Appeal?
The panel of Justice Olukayode Bada (presiding) with Justices Ejembi Eko, Samuel Chukwudumebi Oseji, James Abiriyi and Hamma Akawu Barka ruled that since Otti had at the pre-trial agreed to the number of days allotted, it was too late in the day for him to seek an extension after the time allowed him had expired.
In the words of Bada, JCA who presided and read the opinion of the Court, “The petitioner/applicant had, in my view, approached the proceedings at the lower tribunal as if they had all the time in the world to prosecute the petition in whatever laissiez faire manner or that they had the magic of Joshua to arrest the sun or time from moving”.
The panel continued that the pre-trial order was not part of the record, and that it could not set aside what was not before it, adding that the law does not give room for speculation. Relying on Lekwot and others versus the Judicial Tribunal Etc, (1997) NWLR, and Part 515 at page 22, it rule that it could not make an order against what was not before it as in the pre-trial order of the tribunal. According to the justices, it was a settled in law that no court had jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal with an incomplete record.
Going hard on the appellant, Justice Bada held, ‘On the peculiar facts of this case, the Appellants would not be entitled to benefit from their indilligence or mischief’, pointing out that it was on record that they agreed to the pre-trial order and never objected to it till they felt it was no more convenient for them.
They noted that whereas the case ought to have commenced on August 3, it was at the instance of the Appellant Petitioner that it was shifted to August 10 and saw it as a ploy to waste time.
“It is clear from Folami vs Cole (1990) 2 NWLR Part 133, 445 at 456; Babale Vs Eze (2012) All FWLR Part 635 at 287 that delay defeats equity and that equity only aids the vigilant and not the indolent. The conduct of the Appellant considering they were given 7 days to prosecute their petition and that in view of Section 285 of the Constitution as amended, is of essence in election matters does not warrant the lower Tribunal to accede to the prayers in their application, the subject of the appeal. Accordingly, there is no substance in the interlocutory appeal and it is dismissed in its entirety”, they held.
The decision of the Appellate court therefore was bold and worked in tandem with the spirit and intention of the Constitution to expeditiously prosecute the matters so that whoever emerges victorious would not be denied the fruit of his victory while the duties of governance would not be left to suffer on the platter of delays and technicalities.
Why did the same Court of Appeal that had thrown out Otti’s appeal turn round to grant Otti’s second Appeal and nullify Ikpeazu’s election?
The issues involved in Otti’s first appeal to the Court of Appeal were different from those he canvassed in his second appeal. As I have said earlier, Otti’s first appeal was an Application for extension of time to call additional witnesses to prove his case – an interlocutory appeal. By the time he brought his second appeal, the Tribunal in Umuahia had dismissed Otti’s petition and affirmed Ikpeazu’s declaration and return as the duly elected Governor of Abia State. So Otti’s second appeal was against the substantive judgment of the Tribunal affirming Ikpeazu’s election as Governor.
In its judgment, the Tribunal in Umuahia had found that the Returning Officer in the Abia State Governorship election had no powers to cancel election results already collated and announced and that only the election Tribunal could exercise such powers. At the appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Tribunal that the Returning Officer had no powers to nullify election results or to reverse himself and that whatever he had done in that regard was a nullity. However, the Court of Appeal in its wisdom went ahead to exercise those powers and to nullify the election in the three disputed Local Governments Areas of Obingwa, Osisioma and Isiala Ngwa North. Having found there was over voting in the said LGAs, the Court went ahead to subtract the votes cast for each of the disputing candidates in each of the said LGAs from his total as announced by INEC. The result of this exercise saw Otti the winner. It was against this judgment of the Court of Appeal that Ikpeazu appealed to the Supreme Court.
Well, the law prevailed at the Supreme Court; truth over falsehood, good over evil, justice over injustice. Though that Court is yet to give its reasons, the Court upturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal, restored the judgment of the Election Tribunal that sat in Umuahia and returned to Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu the mandate, which the good people of Abia State had generously given to him.
As leader of Ukwa Ngwa Professionals how do you feel?
I feel fulfilled. I am still floating in the air from the euphoria of that announcement by the Supreme Court. I feel my job is done and I can now sing the Nunc Dimitis and go on to other pursuits.
What is next for Ukwa-Ngwa Professionals?
As an organisation, a lot of work still needs to be done. We have won the battle; but not yet the war. We are conscious of this and until the war is won - the war against injustice and oppression, the war against poverty, we cannot consider our job done.