YESTERDAY’S SUPREME COURT CASE: OGAH VS IKPEAZU & 2 ORS

By Ugochukwu Amaraizu Esq.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria kick started this morning at exactly 9:00am with the hearing of preliminary applications that have nothing to do with the Abia Governor’s case. In the course of hearing one of the applications, one of the Counsel to the parties referred the Court to Dr Alex Otti’s application for joinder and sought to rely on the principle established in same to drive his point home. However, the Court sharply distinguished his case from Otti’s case by stating that the difference between his case and Otti’s case lies on the fact that Otti had already filed an appeal and finally prayed the Supreme Court for leave to be joined. The Counsel had no pending appeal. However, it is pertinent to report the Court’s remark on Otti’s case. The Court unequivocally stated that they are yet to decide on Otti’s case. The Acting CJN said they will decide when the matter comes before them. In other words, they are yet to look into Otti’s case. His case will be heard in March.
NOTE. Dr Alex Otti’s appeal has not been struck out. It will be heard in March.
ON THE BUSINESS OF THE DAY.
The Acting CJN, who presided in today’s proceeding, first of all, condemned the idea of multiplying appeals that ordinarily should have been one on the ground that all emanated from one judgment. He persuaded all parties to tie their submissions to the lone issue that gave rise to the judgment.
At this juncture, a certain counsel for Dr Alex Otti, stood up and began to draw the attention of the Court to a letter they wrote, stating that they were surprised that the appeals were slated for adoption today. He stressed that they are interested parties and would be affected by the outcome of today’s appeals. He observed that the same letter was forwarded to all the lawyers in the matter and that he had confided or discussed with the other lawyers on the development. He prayed the Court to adjourn today’s proceedings to enable them smuggle in their briefs of argument. However, Chief Olanipekun, SAN and Chief Alex Izyon ( Ogah’s lawyer ), opposed the application with OLANIPEKUN reemphasizing that they are not only interlopers this time but that they are now interloping… Relying on the submissions of both learned SANs, the Court refused to hear Otti’s Counsel prayer for adjournment. The reason is that such oral application, according to Chief OLANIPEKUN, is not only strange but unprecedented and conspicuously offends the rule of procedure.
It will be recalled that 3 appeals were slated for hearing today. That’s, appeals number 717, 719 and 739. The Court in its wisdom, ordered that parties MUST tie their arguments or oral adumbrations together, reason being that all the appeals have a common root and that the arrangement would aid or hasten quick determination of the matter. Sure!
Starting with Ogah’s lead Counsel- Chief Alex Izyon, SAN, their case can simply be summarized as follows:
That Dr Okezie Victor Ikpeazu who participated in the PDP primaries, prior to the primaries, filled and submitted INEC Forms and tax papers which contain glaring false information and thereby contravened section 31 of the Electoral Act.
That the trial Court ( Justice Okon Aban ) after a careful consideration of all the documents submitted by Ikpeazu, found that the documents indeed contravened section 31 and finally disqualified Ikpeazu pursuant to the provisions of the said law.
That Ogah’s never alleged that Ikpeazu forged tax documents but rather supplied false information and stands disqualified in that circumstance. His attempt to distinguish the Cross River case wasn’t clear and/or successful. He only posited that the issues are different and likewise the facts thereon.
In his defense, Chief Wole OLANIPEKUN systematically itemized the errors in the submissions and/or case of Ogah.
First, he said that it is amazing that Ogah alleged his case is hinged on mere false information whereas the trial Court, on certain pages of the judgment by the trial Court which the learned Counsel referred the Court to, had apparently accused the 1st Respondent ( Ikpeazu ) of perjury. What a glaring contradiction!
Secondly, OLANIPEKUN submitted that section 31 is the fulcrum or the pivot on which the appellant’s case revolves. Surprisingly, the learned trial Court in his judgment also proceeded to disqualify the 1st Respondent without making reference to the Constitution which has already made excellent provisions for the grounds for disqualification of a candidate for Governorship election. He cited the celebrated case of Ukachukwu vs PDP. He also referred to a plethora of other authorities which according to him covered the whole field.
He rounded off his argument by drawing the Court’s attention to the pages of the judgment in Cross River case ( supported by other cases ) where the Supreme Court unequivocally settled the whole matter. He argued that section 31 of the Electoral Act cannot be construed to creat additional grounds for qualification or disqualification of candidates for Governorship election. Its construction MUST be linked to the Constitution. According to him and as succinctly stated in the Cross River case, mere inconsistencies in documents CANNOT be a ground to disqualify a candidate who is otherwise qualified. In otherwise, assuming there is false information, inconsistency or discrepancy in any document ( ie not contained in affidavit ), that alone cannot disqualify a person. That is the principle… Interestingly, the Court kindly interrupted Chief Olanipekun when he wanted to further argue that assuming Ikpeazu were not even a public servant, his tax papers shouldn’t have been subjected to scrutiny for the purpose of satisfying a constitutional requirement.
Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN attacked the Trial Court’s refusal to hear the position of the issuing authority. That is, the agency that issued the alleged tax receipts. According to him, the argument that Ikpeazu paid excess tax or that he paid on Saturday or on Sunday doesn’t hold grounds. Tax can rightly be calculated from year to year irrespective of the day the tax year ends.
F.N Nwosu’s lawyer acted a very serious drama in open Court. In his attempt to argue Nwosu’s case in one of the appeals, he prayed the Court to allow Ogah’s appeal in part. This is quite strange. This prayer provoked the wrath of the Acting CJN who insisted that the lawyer must state exactly what he wants the Court to do. NOTE: We understood his predicament. If he prays the Court to allow the appeal in its entirety, Nwosu stands to lose to Ogah. If he also prays the Court to dismiss the appeal, he equally stands to lose to Ikpeazu. The lawyer decided to use his native intelligence to ask for partial allowance and/or dismissal of the appeal. In his attempt to explain the rational behind such unprecedented application based on the circumstance of the case, the Court ordered him to take a stand. At this juncture, our learned friend applied for a withdrawal of his brief of argument. This application provoked the CJN who threatened to order for seizure and/or withdrawal of the Lawyer’s license. However, Counsel informed the Court that he just inherited the file and that he wasn’t the person that filed the briefs. This whole thing attracted an application for cost which was granted against the lawyer’s Chambers at the rate of #200,000.00. Similarly, his 2nd brief in respect of appeal number 319 was equally struck out.
The Court room came back to live when Chief OLANIPEKUN’s son, in one of the appeals, did a critical appraisal of section 31 of the Electoral Act. In his analysis, the young and smart looking lawyer X-rayed the intention of the draftsmen on that particular section of the law. According to him, section 31 contains two options. It has to do with FALSE INFORMATION contained in an affidavit which is perjury or false information contained in a document. What the trial Court did was to import a crime in the 2nd leg of the option and proceeded to rely on tax papers which ab initio do not constitute grounds for disqualification of a Governorship candidate under our Constitution.
In furtherance, the young man submitted that assuming Ogah is entitled to take benefit of section 31 of the Electoral Act, did he tender other relevant documents which the Trial Court would have relied on to declare him the duly elected Governor of Abia State? For a person to be qualified to contest for Governorship election, certain conditions must be satisfied and there was nothing before the Trial Court to confirm that he indeed satisfied those conditions. None of those requirements were tendered in prosecution of his case at the trial Court.
At the conclusion of all the oral amplifications, the Court adjourned the matter to 12th day of May, 2017 for JUDGMENT.