Anambra PDP: Challenge Of Conflicting Judgments

*Apex Court Keeps Mum On Lawmakers, Sends Emeakayi Into Limbo
*Umeh Sued Wrong Candidate, I Deserve Certificate Of Return, Okonkwo

SUPREME Court judgment in the protracted leadership crisis in Anambra State chapter of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), last Friday, left more questions than answers. Though many news media went to town with the interpretation that all legislators elected on the platform of the party had been sacked, a second look at the judgment indicated that the parties to the Apex court matter may have recourse to the courts for judicial interpretation.

Sounding much like a medical doctor’s prescription to a layman, the full panel of Supreme Court Judges through Justice John Inyang Okoro, declared: “I hold the view that the court below misconceived the real issue in controversy at the trial court, which gave birth to the appeal before it. There was no controversy as to which organ of the 1st respondent PDP, has power to conduct primaries. I can say it for the umpteenth time that the main issue was that stated by the learned trial judge. That is, whether the 1st respondent can ignore the subsisting order of court and set up a caretaker committee for Anambra State PDP in brazen contempt of the court. Period! Other issues that were thrown up were just to garnish the issue.”

The perceived confusion thrown up by the apex court’s ruling stems from its closing statements that “having resolved all the five issues in favour of the appellants, I hold that there is merit in this appeal, which is hereby set aside. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is hereby set aside. The order of the Federal High Court in Suit No FHC/PH/CS/213/2013 (now Suit No FHC/AWK/CS/247/2013) recognizing the Ejike Oguebego-led Executive Committee of the PDP Anambra State chapter is still subsisting until set aside by an order of court…”

Being a matter that predated the 2015 general elections, gaps exist in the judgment as it relates to the nomination and election of the party’s candidates. Those gaps are what some analysts claim open the way for another cycle of legal gymnastics in various courts. Even at that other issues to be resolved include whether in the light of the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the judgment of the Supreme Court confers electoral relief to candidates of the Oguebego faction of PDP Anambra State chapter. Again, in the absence of a declarative order, could those candidates approach the National Assembly to be sworn in? Furthermore, regardless of the fact that the matter was a pre-election one over which of the two contending executive committees, was the authentic leadership of the party in Anambra; could the Apex court pronouncement affect the position of the elected representatives of PDP in the National Assembly knowing full well that the issue of electoral disputations in National Assembly terminates at the Court of Appeal? Finally, can a pre-election matter involving factions of a political party confer automatic victory on rival candidates without a rerun election?

Despite the incongruities thrown up by the latest judicial verdict on the long drawn leadership dispute in Anambra PDP, most news outlets construed it as a sack for incumbent legislators, when in fact the Apex court spoke in legal tongues about the fate of the elected representatives. “…The Court below having left the main issue in controversy and being persuaded by dwelling on the issue as to which organ of PDP has power to conduct primary, went on a frolic and cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, I hold that there was no feature in the case submitted by the appellants that warranted the court below to apply the cases of Okadigbo V. Emeka and Ors, and Emenike V. PDP. The two authorities decide on which organ of a political party has power to conduct primaries. This is not the issue in this case. Thus, this issue is yet again resolved in favour of the appellants,” the Supreme Court decided.

Perhaps, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division on the appeal filed by the senatorial candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Chief Victor Umeh, against the election of Senator Uche Ekwunife, should be blamed for the temptation to smuggle in the issue of which organ of PDP had power to conduct primaries. After noting that the appellants distilled three issues for determination, the Court of Appeal decided to restrain itself to determining the first issue, which is “whether the Tribunal correctly and rightly determined that the 11th respondent, (Ekwunife), was qualified to contest the senatorial election within the context of Section 65(2)(b) of the 1999 constitution, as amended read together with section 138 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended.”

Narrating the processes that culminate in a valid primary election, the Appeal Court stated that the “11th respondent, who had denied taking part in the Ejike Oguebego-led factional State executive of PDP, could therefore not have been properly nominated, since that was the fact(ion)that had the primaries.” It noted that the 11th respondent testified that she participated in the primary election conducted by the NWC and NEC of PDP, where she won and had her name sent to INEC. “As the party was factional, a caretaker committee was appointed to oversee the affairs of the party in Anambra State.” This could be where the confusion arises. Did the Supreme Court dabble into the methodology adopted by a political party to arrive at its list of candidates for an election, without violating its principle that the onus of presenting candidates for election lies with the national headquarters of the party?

Interrogating the PDP senatorial primary election further, the Enugu Appeal Court pointed out that the “National body of PDP in Anambra State” cannot and has not been shown to be the National Executive Committee of the PDP imbued with responsibility to conduct the primary. “It is therefore clear from that point that it was not the proper body that conducted the primary which produced the 11th respondent as the nominated candidate for the election. Even if the ‘National body of PDP in Anambra State’-conducted primary was sanctioned by the NWC and NEC of PDP, it was not the body imbued with the responsibility to conduct the primary.”

Andy Uba

Despite the fact that recent Supreme Court ruling in the governorship election appeal of Benue State decided that an outsider should not enjoy the liberty to question the primary election of another political party, the Enugu appellate court went further to deliver the killer punch on Ekwunife’s election: “So, whether it was the ‘National body of PDP in Anambra State’, the 5-man National Assembly Electoral Committee, or the care-taker committee that conducted the primary election, which produced the 11th respondent as the nominated candidate of PDP to contest the election, it is immaterial…The 11th respondent was therefore not the product of a valid primary and was therefore not duly and legitimately nominated. That has disqualified her from contesting the election into the Anambra Central senatorial district,” Justice A. D. Yahaya ruled.

The overt implication of the various court rulings on the nagging Anambra PDP crisis is that only in Anambra Central Senatorial district that vacancy exists. The Apex court’s decision, which appears to lack a consequential order, has merely opened up PDP for participation in the rerun election ordered, albeit wrongly, by the Appeal Court, Enugu. A lot of issues have been beclouding the leadership of PDP in Anambra State. Just as the case in the Supreme Court lasted, various political interests were moving around Abuja in search of a possible leeway to ensure favourable outcome.

Sources disclosed at a point, frantic efforts to reach one of the female justices of the Supreme Court, were made by those who felt that the Anambra Central senatorial election is pointer to the 2017 governorship election in the state. The situation in Anambra Central Senatorial zone was made so tense following speculations that the former Senatorial candidate for APC, now the Minister for Labour and Employment, Senator Chris Ngige, declined to participate in the rerun election to concentrate on his ministerial appointment and prepare to have another go for the governorship.

Sources disclosed that an undertaking not to aspire to run for the governorship on APC platform was the condition Ngige gave to Ekwunife before handing his political structure over to her and encouraging her entry into the party. But by screening out Ekwunife, who was sacked by the Appeal Court, and recent apex court ruling have made it that two new candidates, Senator Annie Okonkwo and Barrister Sharon Olive Ikeazor, would feature on the ballot for the rerun.

Senator Annie Okonkwo, who stands as the greatest beneficiary of the Supreme Court ruling, did not waste time to rejoice at the judgment. Okonkwo, who was also a member of the 6th Senate, noted that the apex court judgment has restored his mandate. In a statement, he expressed the hope that the judgment would give him a another opportunity to serve the people of Anambra Central, adding that there was no controversy that the Supreme Court had by the judgment declared him as the authentic candidate of the PDP.

However, the senator brought up a new dimension to the Supreme Court judgment when he contended in his statement that he expects INEC to issue him a certificate of return, since according to him, the APGA candidate, Umeh, whose petition sacked Ekwunife, sued the wrong person.

And while Senator Okonkwo is getting set to demand his certificate of return from INEC, the nine lawmakers that were allegedly injured by the apex court ruling, have written INEC through their lawyers, urging the electoral body not to fall into the “prevailing folly of misinterpreting the Supreme Court judgment.”

In the letter jointly signed by the legislators, including Senators Andy Uba, Adaeze Stella Oduah; Chris Azubuogu, Anayo Nebe, among others; the lawmakers reminded INEC not to misled by the legal department as in the past when it accepted the list presented by the state chapter of PDP. While drawing the attention of INEC to pages 46, 47 and 48 of the Supreme Court judgment, the lawmakers explained: “This correspondence is aimed at setting the record straight so that your goodself will not again, be misled by your legal department into unjustifiably occasioning an unnecessary confusion in the process.” The embattled legislators noted that various apex court decisions including the one of Friday January 29, 2016; affirmed that only list of candidates submitted by the National Executive of the party was valid.