Supreme Court hears Omehia's suit against Amaechi today
By Bertram Nwannekanma
HEARING on the vexed issue of who, between the Rivers State governor, Mr. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi and his predecessor, Sir Celestine Omehia, who was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the April 14, 2007 governorship election, is expected to commence today at the Supreme Court, barring any last minute adjournment.
The hearing is sequel to Omehia's application penultimate week in which he sought a review of the court's October 25, 2007 judgment delivered between him and Amaechi, praying that the verdict be set aside.
It would be recalled that the apex court, in its judgment delivered on October 25, 2007, not only recognised Amaechi as the PDP candidate in the polls but declared him as the duly elected governor of the state, thus displacing Omehia as governor.
But Omehia, in his latest application filed by his counsel, James Ezike, is arguing that the reason given by the court on January 18, 2008, for its decision was a nullity because it lacked the jurisdiction and was incompetent to do so. He is contending that the said judgment of the court amounted to a special repeal of Sections 177, 178 (iii) and 179 of the 1999 Constitution, adding that a judgment which deemed a candidate who had not contested an election as having won and lost same was unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
According to the former governor, the reasoning of the court in its judgment of the case where it stated that "it is only a party that canvasses for votes...and only a party that wins an election," was an act of judicial lawmaking, which is a fundamental encroachment on the powers assigned to the legislature under the principle of Separation of Powers.
He further averred that the provisions of Sections 177, 178 (iii) and 179 of the 1999 Constitution and Sections 33(i), 34(i) and (iii), 35, 36, 37(i) 38, 39 51, 54 (iv), 64 (i) and (ii) 65, 70, 71, 76, and 103 (i) of the Electoral Act 2006 clearly express the intention of the legislature that the candidate who contests, wins or loses election. Omehia averred that the Supreme Court, by its findings referred to, actually made new laws.
The former governor further argued that the decision of the court where it declared Amaechi as the winner of the election in which he allegedly did not contest was not based on any fact, available evidence, law or precedent but on its decree that "it is only a party that canvasses for votes that wins an election."
Omehia, therefore, wants the apex court to make an order restoring the parties to their status quo as of the day preceding the date of the judgment (October 24, 2007).
Though the gubernatorial election in the state had been conducted on April 14, 2007, and Omehia of PDP declared winner of the polls and sworn in as governor, there was a controversy over who was the authentic PDP candidate in the election.
Despite claims by Omehia and PDP that he (Omehia) was the PDP candidate and governor in the state by virtue of the PDP winning the April 14 governorship election, Amaechi had deposed otherwise, claiming that if PDP had a governor in the state, he (Amaechi) should be the one, having overwhelmingly won the party primaries of December 2006.
