RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT RESPONDS ON THE OBIO-AKPOR SUIT AND JUSTICE IYAYI-LAMIKANRA, THE OBIO-AKPOR SUIT, THE PORT HARCOURT CENTENARY WORK-FREE DECLARATION AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. INTRODUCTION: The Hon. Justice Adama Iyayi-Lamikanra of the Rivers State High Court, sitting in the Port Harcourt Judicial Division, presides over the Obio-Akpor suit filed by the suspended Chairman of that council in which he is seeking judicial intervention to return him to office. As it is the case with everything now in the State, the proceedings have become subject of bitter and unrestrained politics. THE SOURCE OF THE POLITICISATION OF THE MATTER: The politicisation (the term is here used to denote the arousing of unrestrained political interest in the matter) started when the former Chief Judge, Iche N. Ndu, Ksc,OFR, a few days to his lordship’s retirement, ‘mysteriously’ ‘assigned’ the suit to Justice Iyayi-Lamikanra as though it was a fresh suit when, in fact, it was pending already before Justice Iragunima and ought to have been a re-assignment. The instrument which the former Chief Judge used in effecting it, shows, clearly, that it was done as though it was never pending in any previous court. This was the beginning of political suspicion in the matter. The Defendants, except the Claimants, did not know of the ‘reassignment’ until they got to Justice Iragunima’s Court on the return date of 10/10/13 for a Ruling, when they learnt there in her Court, of the transfer. CONTINUING SOURCE OF POLITICISATION: On the 23rd day of October, 2013, the ‘assigned’ suit came before Hon. Justice Iyayi-Lamikanra for the first time. In law, ordinarily, coming up for the first time, the suit should be for Mention and not for any other business, not the least, for hearing except the parties agree. However, on that day, the Judge not only heard all the applications in the file including the ones filed that very morning accusing her of bias – and dismissed them all. MORE SOURCES OF POLITICISATION: His Lordship heard application for stay of proceedings and after hearing it, adjourned Ruling on it and continued with the proceedings of the day in the matter all to ensure hearing and conclusion of the matter on that same day! I was in court. I sat there from the beginning of the proceedings till the end. These therefore, are not what I read in the newspapers or relayed to me by anyone. No. These are what I heard, saw and observed personally in court that day. THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF POLITICISATION: Perhaps, the biggest source of politicisation of this simple suit was what the Judge subsequently did: Emenike Ebete, Esq, of counsel to the Obio/Akpor Caretaker Committee, moved his motion in which he prayed the court to extend time for his clients, up to 14 days, to file their reply to the originating summons. In other words, an extension of time for them to be heard. The court granted the Order as prayed – in effect giving them 14 days within which to file their defence, as it were, so as to be heard. After so granting the prayer, the court insisted that the matter must go on to hearing that day! The lawyer protested that having just been granted an extension to state, as it were, their own side of the story, to the case, (to use ordinary parlance), it followed that hearing could not go on until after the period (14 days) granted them within which period they would have filed their defence. He then formally, applied for an adjournment, following the grant of the Order of extension of time, to enable him do what the court had granted him 14 days to do. Curiously, the learned Trial Justice Iyayi- Lamikanra declined to allow him to go and file his defence despite the Order for that purpose. Curiously, still, the court went on with the hearing of the suit and after which adjourned for Judgement!!! This is what happened in court on that day. I repeat that I was personally present. I have since applied for and obtained the certified (true) copy of the proceedings and have arranged for its publication in the print media for any doubting person to see and read it. This is the biggest source of the politicisation of the matter. ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE PERSON OF THE JUDGE: Since then, accusation of bribery in foreign currency and sundry other benefits against the Judge have been inundating the media and social space. Apart from the fact that those are difficult to prove, and in many cases impossible of proof, I hereby restate my oft-repeated position that no sitting Judge should be denigrated in the media. That would be destructive of the Judicial System just on the basis of only one person’s alleged judicial malfeasance. The desire to protect the system as a whole, should give wider berth to the overwhelming urge to denigrate a sitting Judge publicly especially since Judges, by the nature of the system, do not defend themselves as expected. There is a system in place, a respectable system, to correct such judges in deserving cases. There is also the appellate system. Chronically slow as it is, it is still an option. Expectedly and in keeping with my own resolve not to denigrate a sitting Judge in public no matter the strength of my belief that such a Judge had been steeped in malfeasance, we lodged an appeal against the proceedings of that day. We must distinguish between factual representation of court proceedings – as I have done here –and denigrating a Judge as the politicians have been doing. I restate here, for emphasis, that Hon. Justice Adama Iyayi-Lamikanra on the very first day the matter came to her court on transfer from another court, ensured that the matter was heard to Judgment stage and refused a party time to file his defence even after she had granted that party an extension of time to go file the defence. Three Senior Advocates in the matter were in court on that day and they are: Ken Njemanze Esq. SAN, one time Attorney General of Imo State; Donald D Nwingwe Esq. SAN, himself also was once an Attorney General of Imo State and Rowland Otaru Esq. SAN. I have named them because they are Senior Advocates and should, in keeping with their status, be more interested in truth to save the judiciary than in a temporary court victory to please a client. That is the meaning of being a Senior Advocate. I expect that they contradict me publicly to expose any lie on my part on this my representation of what transpired in court on that day, especially on the vex issue of granting of extension of time to the Defendants to file their Defence and still going on with the Hearing and adjourning for Judgment. It is difficult not to be horrified by that proceeding no matter how you hate the Defendants’ case. As a legally-trained mind, I was and I am still horrified. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS: Apart from the appeal, Records of Appeal have since been compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal. Hon. Justice Iyayi-Lamikanra has been officially communicated to the effect that Records have been transmitted. This step has legal implications as I shall show anon in the concluding part of this piece. THE CENTENARY WORK-FREE DECLARATION: There has been a series of activities to mark the 100 years of Port Harcourt establishment as a city. To give it a grander celebration, the Rivers State Government declared week-long work- free days which, as Government, it has right under the law to do – no one has said it lacked such power. However, politicians of the factional PDP in Rivers State led by its chairman, Felix Obuah, have continued to state that the work free period was declared to scuttle the delivery of Judgement in the Obio/Akpor suit. The suit was not only adjourned for Judgment, but for ‘Rulings and/or Judgment’. This means, without more, that the Obuah political faction, are aware of what the Judgement will be. In other words, the Judgment is already leaked to them. Which means that Obuah and his group have already known that all the Rulings will be decided against the Defendants –including the application for stay of proceedings- and then the Judgment will be delivered. This is dangerous! LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND THE WORKINGS OF THE COURT: This thinking that the Rivers State Government needed a work-free period in order to prevent further proceedings in the Obio/Akpor suit is one that is borne out of lack of knowledge of the workings of the law and the Judicial System itself. The records of proceedings having been compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal, there is then, automatically, a total lack of Jurisdiction in the court below (i.e. Hon. Justice Adama Iyayi-Lamikanra’s Court) to take any other step in the matter, interlocutory or otherwise, when records have been compiled and transmitted as there can no longer be concurrent proceedings of the courts at that stage. This has always been the Law since Chancery to the modern era. For the avoidance of doubt and to make matters clear contrary to the reasoning of the political Group as to the motive of declaration of work free days, the public is hereby informed that the Law is that the Rivers State Government does not need to declare a holiday to make the Hon. Justice Iyayi -Lamikanra to stop further proceedings on the matter as the Record of Appeal in the matter has already been compiled and transmitted and automatically, the Judge no longer has jurisdiction in the matter until the appeal is disposed of. I speak here of law and not politics. The following are the consistent position of the law on the matter. In: (i) MOHAMMED NDEJIKO MOHAMMED & 4 Ors Vs. MOHAMMED HUSEEININ & ANOR (1998) 14 NWLR (PT 584) at 108 on Page 141, the Supreme Court held that: ‘’In effect, when the Record of proceedings have been transmitted to the appellate Court, whereby the court is seized of the matter, the trial Court lacks every jurisdiction to take any proceeding, interlocutory or otherwise’’. (ii) HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS OBA Y.D OGUNDIPE V CHIEF A.M.A AKINLOYE & 4 ors (2002) 10 NWLR (PT 775) 312 on Pages 336 to 337, Paragraphs A to D, 339 to 340, Paragraphs E to O where the Court of Appeal held as follows: ‘’ the Law is well settled that …once Record of appeal is transmitted to the Court of Appeal, in which case it is seized of the matter, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to take any proceedings, interlocutory or otherwise’. (iii). UDUNMA NWAFOR ORIZU V SAMUEL UCHECHUKWU OFOMATA & 3 ORS (2007) 13 NWLR (PT 1052) 487 On page 508, Paragraphs C to E it was held that: “It should be noted that it is a matter of trite Law that when an action is on appeal from a trial Court…, the trial Court ceases to have jurisdiction on the matter as soon as the appellate court entertaining the appeal has received the Record of Appeal compiled by the appellant and the appellate court enters same in the court’s cause list, the trial Court should no longer exercise jurisdiction over the action.” The above are only fragment of the many clusters of decisions of the Court on the matter to the effect that once an appeal has been entered, the Trial Court, no longer has jurisdiction in the matter. See also the following Decisions: [A] OGUNREMI Vs. DADA (1962) 1 ANLR (PT 4) 663 on Page 668 [B] OKAFOR Vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRASTATE (1991) 6 NWLR (PT 200) 659 on Page 671 Paragraph D to H 4. IGWE JOSIAH AGU & 2 ors Vs. OZO I.O.U ANYALOGU & 4 ors (2002) 14 NWLR (PT 787) 294 on Page 306 Paragraphs E to H and Page 307, Paragraphs A to F 5. HON JUSTICE SOTONYE DENTON-WEST Vs. CHIEF (ICHIE) CHUKS MUOMAH, S.A.N, (2008) 6 NWLR (PT 1083) 418 on page 439 THE QUESTION: Why then should the Rivers State Government be declaring work-free days as with motive to prevent the Hon. Justice Iyayi-Lamikanra from continuing with the jurisdiction in the Obio/Akpor case as to proceed to Judgment (the Judge actually adjourned, not only for Judgment but also for Ruling on some pending motions) when, as demonstrated, such executive interference is not necessary as the law, as reproduced above, has already taken care of the situation? It seems that the Felix Obuah political group is hinting that the lawlessness that now characterise our polity shall now be transported fully into the Obio/Akpor suit and that the Judge shall, willy-nilly, continue, despite the transmission of the records. It is unfortunate that too much Politics is mixing with Law to ridicule the judicial system as exemplified by the Obuah Group using the Police to block entry into and exit from the Obio Akpor Council despite the subsisting Ruling of Nganjiwa J of the Federal High Court. It is curious that the same group which has so successfully and brazenly blocked the Court order from being operational is the same group desperately seeking for another Court Order to be used to enter the premises they have blocked against another Court Order. Maybe, when they get the Judgment as they have hinted, the bomb scare they raised as the reason for disobeying Nganjiwa’s Order will disappear and then they will occupy the Council ostensibly on the strength of a preferred Court Order. To import this lawlessness into the Obio/Akpor suit before the Hon. Justice Iyayi-Lamikanra as the Felix Obuah Group is hinting, will be most unfortunate as it will become proof that anarchy has been successfully introduced into the judicial system. POLITICAL GROUP OF FELIX OBUAH A PARALLEL GOVERNMENT IN RIVERS STATE? There is only one Governor in Rivers State. The Felix Obuah faction of the PDP or any political structure or platform whatsoever, however named, is not the Governor of Rivers State. Where criticisms are legitimate and constructive, they will be welcome, but, acting like a parallel government when you are merely a political Group, is invitation to anarchy. The underpinning boldness of this group which fuels the impunity in Rivers State is traceable to their insistence to their followers and beneficiaries that whatever happens, whatever wrong they commit, that the National Government is behind them through their link Minister. This is unfortunate, both for the polity and for the system. FINAL ADVICE TO LAWLESS POLITICIANS: Since politics is the only means of livelihood for many, it is imperative that that means be preserved as too much lawlessness in the course of politicking has the assured potential of annihilating the system and thus throwing many of its practitioners into unemployment and penury. It is, therefore, the course of wisdom, to play politics in a manner that preserves it, and that is by being law-abiding, so that the ‘profession’ of politics can be preserved, than by destroying it and thus endangering selves (through assured unemployment that will inexorably result when politics is destroyed) and jeopardising the governed (by making them live in fear arising from anarchy). It is, therefore, in every one’s interest, to play by the Rules. Please, remove the Judiciary from your politics. Worgu Boms, Esq. Honourable Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Rivers State.
Posted on: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:59:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015