PDP backs Omehia against Amaechi on tenure suit The Peoples Democratic Party on Monday opposed the bid of the River State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi, to get the Supreme Court to set aside a Court of Appeal ruling which joined his predecessor, Celestine Omehia, as an interested party in a suit concerning his tenure in office. After listening to the submissions of various parties in the appeal, a panel of justices of the Supreme Court fixed February 7, 2014, to deliver its judgment. At the hearing, PDP counsel, Olusola Oke, urged the apex court to dismiss the appeal filed by Amaechi against the Court of Appeal’s decision to join Omehia in as an interested party in the suit. The subject of the suit is whether Amaechi’s tenure started on May 29, 2007, when Omehia was inaugurated, or on October 2007, when the governor was sworn-in after Omehia’s removal by a decision of the Supreme Court. The current legal battle between Amaechi and Omehia commenced in 2010 when a PDP member, Cyprian Chukwu, headed for an Abuja Federal High Court to challenge the Independent National Electoral Commission’s timetable for the 2011 general elections, which fixed the Rivers State governorship poll for August 2011. Chukwu argued that since the Supreme Court had, in the judgment, which removed Omehia and installed Amaechi, held that it was the PDP that won the April 2007 governorship election in Rivers State and not the candidate, Amaechi’s tenure ought to start counting from May 29, 2007, when Omehia was inaugurated, and not October 27, 2007 when he took the oath of office after Omehia’s sacking. In its judgment, the Abuja FHC held that although Amaechi took the oath of office on October 26, 2007, his initial tenure ended on May 28, 2011, adding that his tenure started counting on May 29, 2007 when Omehia was wrongly inaugurated. But the governor would not enjoy the backing of the PDP as the party’s lawyer, Oke, spiritedly opposed his appeal against the appellate court’s decision to join Omehia as a party in the matter. Amaechi had, through his lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, insisted that the appellate court was wrong to have joined Omehia as a party, arguing that the former governor’s applications for joinder was not properly filed. However, addressing the Supreme Court on Monday, PDP lawyer, Oke, insisted that the Court of Appeal was right to join Omehia in the matter. Asking the apex court to dismiss Amaechi’s appeal, Oke said, “The parties are in agreement that a person appealing as an interested party does not have a time limit within which to exercise the right of appeal under section 243 of the constitution. “Under section 243 of the constitution all that is required of an intending appellant is to seek leave of the appropriate court as an interested party. Relief 4 of the application granted by the Court of Appeal was for leave to appeal as an interested party and that met the requirements of section 243 of the constitution.” Amaechi’s lawyer, Fagbemi, maintained that Omehia’s application before the Court of Appeal did not comply with the law. He said, “There is a distinction between an appeal under section 241 of the constitution and that under section 243 of the same constitution. “Under section 243, if you are not a party to a proceeding, you can only launch an appeal with leave of the court. Under section 241, you can appeal as of right if you are already a party. “But once the time within which to appeal has expired, the position is that in addition to a relief of leave to appeal as an interested party, there must be the trinity prayers.”
Posted on: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:15:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015