9th August, 2016
Justice Morounkeji Ogunwumiju-led four other justices of the court to reserve the judgment after counsel to parties adopted their written addresses.
Gov. Okezie Ikpeazu had appealed his removal on June 27 by a Federal High Court in Abuja.
A PDP governorship aspirant, Friday Nwosu who contested the primaries also filed his appeals.
Mr Uche Ogah, the judgment creditor, Chukwuemaka Mba, Obasi Mba, INEC and Ike Agbara were respondents in the matter.
There were six appeals with that of Ikpeazu seeking the setting aside of the Justice Okon Abang judgment of June 27 leading the pack.
Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), counsel to the governor, said the appeal hinged on the decision of the lower court that based its judgment on Tax Certificate and receipts attached on the nomination form of his client.
He said Ikpeazu had always been a public servant, saying that the decision of the trial judge to remove him from office based on tax papers remained unimaginable.
“The trial court with all respect misinterpreted the case.
“The questions that must be answered are whether the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) raised any objections as to the validity of the certificate.
“Did the tax officers accuse Ikpeazu of forgery or evasion of tax payments,’’ he submitted.
According to him, the trial judge was one-sided as the court frustrated the governor’s evidence meant to repair the anomaly associated with the tax clearance.
“Going by the judgment, the trial court accused and sentenced my client of perjury which was totally a misdemeanour because no such case was before it.
“More importantly the PDP guideline which the court supposedly derived its acclaimed to arrive at the judgment did not and was not an evidence before the court.
“My Lords, Section 31 of the Electoral Act which gives parameters for qualification of candidates must also be guided by Sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution,’’ he said.
The above provisions held that falsification of documents by candidates in elections can only be considered as fraud if such candidates had used it to gain advantage over others.
“In the circumstance, my client was not the author of the said document let alone used it to gain undue advantage over other opponents,’’ Olanipekun said.
He, therefore, urged the court to uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court.
On his part, Dr Alex Izinyon (SAN), counsel to Ogah, urged the court to discountenance the submission put up by Olanipekun.
Izinyon said that the falsification had affected his client in the nomination process negatively.
He said that if the matter was decided quick enough the governor would not have contested the election on the platform of PDP.
“My Lord, Ikpeazu was not qualified to be elected as the party’s flag bearer in the first place because he presented a fake Tax Certificate.
“On citing the document, my client immediately filed a petition to the party to challenge his candidacy.
“The matter finally crystalised when his name was sent to INEC as the party’s candidate. That was what finally gave us the cause of action,’’ he said.
Izinyon also said Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2015 and Sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution envisaged the action taken by Ikpeazu, adding that he could not have hide under those provisions.
Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), counsel to the PDP aligned himself with the argument advanced by Olanipekun, adding that the lower court gave Ogah what he did not ask for.
Ikpeazu said the PDP’s revised guideline was not consulted at the lower court.
“The decision of the lower court was extraneous to the case. No rule should have been left to conjecture My Lords.
“I therefore pray My Lords to set aside the June 27 judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang and restore Ikpeazu as governor of Abia,’’ he said.
Arguing on PDP main appeal, its counsel, Ikpeazu said the origination summons which ignited the suit was not signed by a legal practitioner.
He said any summons that did not bear a signature of a lawyer was valueless, adding that the suit had no ground in law.
“My Lord, as can be seen from the document which brought about this appeal, no lawyer has signed it and therefore it is fake and of no value.
“I urge the court to strike out the summons. We should not have been here in the first place,’’ Ikpeazu said.
Countering that submission, counsel to Ogah said an address of a counsel on matter like this could not be taken as evidence.
He said: “if the counsel wants to join us in this aspect of the case, he must come by way of an affidavit. Meanwhile it is clear that the summons was duly signed’’.
But, Nwosu who participated in the PDP governorship primary, filed an appeal seeking the court to declare him governor.
Mr John Idoko, counsel to Nwosu, had argued that by the virtue of Ikpeazu’s removal his client naturally became the next on line to be declared having participated in the primary to the end.
He alleged that the judgment Creditor, Ogah had earlier filed a petition to the party challenging the process that made Ikpeazu its candidate.
According to him, Ogah has withdrawn his interest to contest the primary based on acclaimed falsification and violence that beclouded the process.
Olanipekun and Ikpeazu could not agree less with appellant on the allegation that Ogah withdrew from the contest, but, prayed the court to dismiss his prayer to be declared the governor.
According to them, Nwosu stand no chance to seek such relief as he merely joined the case as a nominal interest.
On his part, counsel to Ogah described Nwosu as an interloper, adding that he lacked that locus standi to make such submissions and demand.
Izinyon said the appellant (Nwosu) participated in the primary but scored only five votes and came fifth while my client came second on the log.
He therefore urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
The governor also filed an appeal against the refusal of the lower court to transmit the record of the case to the appellate court.
Olanipekun said the court compel parties to argue the validity of Order 4 Rule 11 of the rules of the Court of Appeal on a matter that should not be controvertible.
However, Izinyon submitted that the decision of the lower court was apt, adding that as at time the motion was brought the governor’s appeal had not been entered.