Posted by By GODWIN TSA, Abuja on
Citing his indictment by a report issued by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on corrupt public office holders, the Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed the appeal brought by former Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi who is laying claim to the gubernatorial ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the State.
Citing his indictment by a report issued by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on corrupt public office holders, the Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed the appeal brought by former Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi who is laying claim to the gubernatorial ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the State.
But Amaechi said it was not yet time for jubilation as the legal battle has just shifted ground to the Supreme Court.
Already, his counsel, Chief Lateef Fagbemi has moved to the Suprem Court, to file his notice of appeal.
The four-month old governorship battle over who was the authentic candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Rivers State between the incumbent governor, Celestine Omehia, and the former speaker of the House of Assembly, Rotimi Amaechi reached a major bus stop as the Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed the appeal, saying the appellant had a serious indictment hanging on him.
In its unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Abdu Aboki, the Court of Appeal said the appellant had a serious indictment hanging on his neck, which justifies his substitution with the incumbent governor, Celestine Omehia by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at the instance of his party, the PDP.
The Judgment was written by Justice Olufunmilola Adekeye which held that it was in the record of the court that the appellant was indicted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and that the indictment was vital to the merit of the case.
Earlier the appellate court struck out the application by governor Omehia claiming immunity on the grounds that section 308 of the constitution is only applicable to civil and criminal matters but in the contest, it was applied in the case, the court could not obliged him.
Justice Aboki said that notwithstanding that no evidence was led to prove the allegation at the trial court, it behooves on the trial judge to have taken judicial notice of the indictment before coming to his conclusion.
He explained that it was not in doubt that the appellant was indicted by the EFCC, 'the exercise that was not controverted nor contested by the appellant at the trial court, adding that once the indictment has become of public knowledge, it followed that a court of law should not ignore it in the determination of the suit before it.."
It was the submission by the counsel to INEC, Amaechi Nweiwu that further evidence needed be adduced to rationalise the reason the appellant was substituted by the party and why INEC gave effect to the party's decision to change its governorship candidate in the state.
But in its judgment, the appellate court dismissed the application and said that such position would be taken at the trial court before judgment was entered, stressing that harping the latest judgment on indictment was no because the 1st Respondent raised it or because it poised to adduce evidence on it but for the simple reason that indictment once made becomes an issue.
Although the court agreed that the appellant won the primary by as much as 6,575 votes and that his name was forwarded to the electoral body, the mere fact that the allegation known to the government and the public was hanging on him complicated his position.
The court held that the appellant was not disqualified by the INEC but by his party, PDP, which has the right to decide who represents it at general elections.
It added that all INEC would have done was to verify the party's reasons whether they met with the provisions of section 34 of the Electoral Act that states that "cogent and verifiable reasons" were advanced by the political party seeking to change its candidate.
According to the court, since the thrust of the suit at the trial court and even at the appeal court bothers on substitution, the appellant was properly substituted and recommended that in future INEC must be given power to verify the claims of the party.
Justice Omokeye whose lead judgment was endorsed by other justices on the panel said that the issue of sponsorship was a domestic affair of the party and in that wise, the court lacks power to exercise jurisdiction on it.
The court said that the appeal lacked merit and consequently dismissed it.