FOLLOWING a petition against it to the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu Thursday adjourned indefinitely the appeal pending before it over the leadership tussle of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA).
The petition was allegedly written by the respondent in the matter, Jude Okuli, in which he accused the panel of bias.
The three-man panel of justices including Paul Galinje (chairman), Justice F. A. Kwasami and Tom Yakubu, who presided over the appeal, said at the resumed hearing of the case yesterday that the respondent, Okuli, had petitioned the NJC over their ruling for stay of execution of the Enugu State High Court's decision that removed from office the party's National Chairman, Victor Umeh.
According to Justice Galinje, the NJC had forwarded a copy of the petition to him for his comment and he had since done that, adding that since they were aware of the pendency of the petition, the substantive appeal could not be heard until the council took a decision on the petition.
He, therefore, adjourned the matter sine die, saying further hearing on the appeal would depend on the outcome of the petition before the NJC.
Meanwhile, the appeal filed by Okuli at the Supreme Court against the stay of execution granted Umeh by the appellate court had been slated for hearing on December 16 and 17 this year, one month after the scheduled November 16 governorship election in Anambra State.
The Federal High Court sitting in Awka had last week vacated the interim order it earlier made restraining Mr. Maxi Okwu, APGA's factional chairman, but declared that its action had no effect whatsoever on the decision of the Appeal Court, which restored Umeh to his position as APGA national chairman.
Umeh's counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who spoke briefly after yesterday's session, said: "The situation now is as announced by the court that the suit will pend until it hears from the NJC. That is fair enough and I want to commend the justices of the Court Appeal. It shows they don't have anything at stake.
"They don't have interest in anybody or person and that's how it should be and I believe that's how justice should be dispensed. That means they don't have what is called insurable interest in the subject matter, in who wins or who loses. That's an open demonstration of impartiality by the panel of justices".
The Guardian
Well since it's been adjourned then we all know the whole matter is not over yet. Sooner or later, everyone would meet in court again.