Ejike-Oguebego Remains PDP Chairman in Anambra, Supreme Court Insists

Says status of Andy Uba, Stella Oduah not an issue

Tobi Soniyi

The Supreme Court yesterday stood by its judgment which declared the Ejike Oguebego-led executive of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the recognised party leadership in Anambra State

Following conflicting interpretations and claims by different parties, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had applied to the Supreme Court for a review of the judgment.

While all lawmakers, including Senator Andy Uba and Stella Oduah, elected from Anambra on the platform of the party said the decision of the Supreme Court did not vitiate their elections, others especially the plaintiffs, said the judgment had by implication vitiated the lawmakers’ election.

In declining to review the judgment which was delivered on January 29, the court said by its rules and the provisions of the constitution, it lacked the jurisdiction to review its own judgment

The court said the judgment was clear and unambiguous as it related to the leadership of PDP in the state only.

In a ruling delivered by Justice John Okoro, the apex court held that the judgment by its ordinary meaning, did not need to be subjected to any clarification or interpretation.

Besides, the court held that what was brought before it was the issue of leadership of the PDP in Anambra State and not on the implication of election that was conducted thereafter.

In the unanimous ruling, Justice Okoro however said the dispute on whether the certificate of return should be withdrawn from the serving lawmakers and giving to the list of candidates of the Oguebego faction was not an issue before the court and that the court never made any pronouncement to that effect.

The court held that what was brought before it was the issue of leadership of the PDP in the state and not on the implications or consequences of election that was conducted in the state during the last general election.

But the court in the ruling said the controversy and confusion on the status of the lawmakers was unnecessary because the National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal and the Court of Appeal had determined their status in their various judgments.

Justice Okoro said since the Court of Appeal was the final arbiter and had made pronouncement, there was no need to invite the Supreme Court to make any clarification on a concluded matter that was not ambiguous.

Beside, Justice Okoro said there was no dispute in the claim of the PDP National Executive Committee (NEC) that it submitted the list of nominated candidates for National Assembly election to the INEC, having conducted the primary election in line with the PDP constitution.

Justice Okoro therefore advised lawyers especially the senior ones to always give their clients genuine advice and should not turn themselves to slaves of politicians.

The court also held that Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court expressly stated that the court could not review its judgment once given except there was a clerical mistake or slip which in this case never happened.

He held that the action sought would amount to rewriting the judgment and giving order where nothing had been shown that there was a clerical mistake in the judgment.

Reacting to the ruling, counsel to INEC, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), said the decision of the court had resulted in blackmail and confusion by parties in the suit who interpreted the judgment to suit their own purposes.

But counsel to the Ejike Oguebego faction, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), said the ruling had cleared the way for them to benefit from the judgment delivered on January 29, 2016.

Uche said when the Federal High Court gave ruling on the issue, the INEC complied immediately without seeking clarification and that when the court of appeal over turned the decision of the Federal High Court, the same electoral body complied with the appellate court decision without seeking any clarification.

The counsel wondered why the same INEC has found it difficult to act on the Supreme Court decision of January 29 the way it acted on the decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal.

He said his clients would press for their benefits from the Supreme Court judgment as appropriately.