A five-man panel of the Supreme Court yesterday fixed February 7, 2014 to rule on the validity of an application by the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Sir Celestine Omehia, seeking to join a suit filled against the 2011 election of Rivers Sate Governor Rotimi Amaechi. The apex court fixed the date yesterday after all parties in the suit adopted their briefs.
The court, however, hinted that it would express its opinion on the gutter language used by members of the inner bar representing parties in the matter in their written briefs. The decision of the apex court will determine whether Omehia would be shut out of the case which made his tenure an issue.
It will be recalled that one Chief Cyprian Chukwu had instituted a suit against Amaechi before a Federal High Court to seek its pronouncement on when exactly the first tenure of the governor expired.
Cyprian was of the view that Amaechi's first tenure expired on May 28, 2011, but Amaechi contended that it expired in October 2011 since he took his first oath of office in October 2007 after the Supreme Court verdict which pronounced him the governor.
The Federal High Court had ruled in favour of Cyprian, but Amaechi rejected the verdict and went on appeal. The appeal was about to be heard when Omehia came after 200 days of the high court verdict with an application to join in the suit as an interested party, a request that was granted. Aggrieved, Amaechi stormed the Supreme Court to nullify the ruling of the Court of Appeal which joined Omehia as a party in the suit.
At the resumed hearing of the matter yesterday, Chief Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) led a team of layers that represented Amaechi while Omehia was represented by Nnoruka Udechukwu (SAN). Olusola Oke, who was attacked for allegedly changing his position on the application by Omehia, represented the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), while Rickey Tarfa represented Chief Cyprian.
The five-man panel led by Justice Muhktar Kumasi granted Udechukwu's prayer to withdraw an application dated August 7, 2013 that sought ancillary relief in the event of the substantive appeal failing by invoking Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act for the apex court to entertain the substance of the case on its merit as court of first instance. Fagbemi, who adopted his briefs, stated that there was a distinction between an appeal under Section 241 of the 1999 Constitution and the one under Section 243 of the same Constitution.
"Under Section 243, if you are not a party to proceeding, you can only lodge an appeal with leave of court and it is after granting of the leave, you can join. Under Section 241, you can as of right if you are already a party but once time within which to appeal expires, you cannot, Fagbemi stated.