At the Court of Appeal,Abuja Divison - HEARING (Part 1)

It was a very a busy day,a day that started the safe
journey of impunity in God's own State. The court
room was filled to the brim. Lawyers in their numbers
filled the room all dressed in their legal regalia. The
concerned representatives were all there. Other artists
who play a role at one point were also there. I place
before you a chronicle of what transpired and facts that
must be considered before taking a position. It is better
to prepare for the worst and get the opposite than the
otherwise...

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
withdrew from the appeal filed by the Abia,Dr Okezie
Ikpeazu, at the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, against
the ruling of the Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High
Court Abuja in Favour of Dr.Uche Ogah.
INEC lawyer, Barr. Tanimu Inua told the court that the
commission is not urging the court for anything,but
that INEC will rely and abide by the decision of the
court.

"To what end is your brief that does not urge anything?
What do you urge? You must urge something or you
withdraw your brief. You can't come here to file a brief
without asking for something. You must urge for
something or you withdraw your brief and keep quiet."
Hon. Justice H.M Ogunnwumuji to Barr. Tanimu Inua.
At this point,the INEC lawyer withdrew from the matter.
Point of note,INEC did not just made mere appearances
they were joined in this case by Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu
hence their appearance.

What INEC did, is the best because they have nothing to
urge the court but obey whatever decision
reached.They are a neutral body and cannot request
anything or appear to be bias but to obey order and
rule of law,just as they did by issuing a certificate of
Return to Dr. Uche Ogah. Their current position in this
case is not a problem but a window opportunity for
both counsel to have their verdict at end of the day...

PDP counsel,Dr.Ikpeazu Onyechi (SAN) said PDP
guidelines cannot be used to qualify or disqualify a
candidate, not to contest in an election. He admitted
that Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu submitted false documents but
argued it was not to gain any advantage. This left the
audience murmuring in disagreement. Apparently,no
one was convinced or impressed by such position.

Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) also urged the court to void
the letter brought by Fakunle on the ground that it was
a worthless document since it had no seal of any
lawyer.But justice Ogunwumiju said the court would
take judicial notice of the letter.

A side drama was that of F. N. Nwosu's lawyer who was
visibly jittery,fumbling with tenses that he even urged
the court to dismiss his own client's appeal. The court
roared in laughter, it was at that point that he realized
his folly. He was later reshaped by Counsel to Dr. Uche
Ogah, Dr.Alex Iziyon SAN,who picked him up describing
his appeal as an insult to the court,lacking locus standi,
and further amuses the court by saying that F N Nwosu
came a miserable 5th in the primaries. Other parties in
that also objected, described Nwosu as a mere usurper
who cannot be allowed to occupy the govt house.

In the main appeal by Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu, the appellate
court was urged to set aside the judgment of the
federal high court delivered on June 27 by Justice Okon
Abang which removed the governor from office.

Ikpeazu through his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun
SAN, claimed that the trial court erred in its conclusion
by predicating its judgment on the PDP guidelines and
tax receipts that were not made by his client but
obtained from official quarters.

Olanipekun argued that Ikpeazu had always been a
public servant and that it is unimaginable that the tax
papers of a public officer would be queried the way the
judge did.

He claimed that Justice Abang misinterpreted section 31
of the Electoral Act, on the ground that there was no
evidence before the court to the effect that the tax
papers submitted by his client were forged or falsified.
Olanipekun further argued that the trial court acted like
a magician when it gave interpretation to PDP guideline
that was not before it.

He said it was wrong of the judge to rely on a mere
deposition by the 1st respondent, Dr. Uche Ogah, to
arrive at the final conclusions of his judgment.
He then urged the court to allow the appeal and set
aside the decision of the lower court.

The question is,if Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN argues
that the position of Justice Abang cannot be relied
upon,what then shall we consider as reliable in this
case? If obviously there were data falsification which
culminated in lying under oath. An issue well known to
be constitutionally criminal,how then shall we reverse a
standing position in law,now? The case of Dr. Okezie
Ikpeazu is that of falsification and not forgery and there
are obvious evidences before the court to legally back
this tussle. Justice Abang clearly stated this,and said he
was satisfied that Dr.Ikpeazu perjured by giving false
information in the Form CF001 and documents
accompanying it, which he submitted to both PDP and
the INEC. What can we further make out of this...?
The position of PDP and INEC in this case is not
fundamentally important as the judgement will,and
shall not be considered based on electoral openings but
rather facts,based on morals and the dictates of the
law. Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu conscientiously signed and
authorized his removal,should we abide on the
caveat,bold on the PDP nomination form which allowed
him to stand for the governorship poll in 2015. Which
clearly stated that " the candidate shall be disqualified
should any information supplied be found falsified"
Having clearly acknowledged the obvious irregularities,
and possession of two tax certificates. What then,how
can it be judged that a defense can convince a noble
court that Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu is just...O di kwa egwu.

However, counsel to Dr.Uche Ogah, Dr. Alex Izinyon
(SAN), said that the judgment of the lower court was
misconstrued by Dr.Okezie Ikpeazu because the issue of
forgery was not before the trial court but that of supply
of false information to obtain the nomination of the
PDP to stand for the governorship poll in 2015.
The counsel argued that the appellant did not dispute
that the information he swore to before the
commissioner for oat and made available to the PDP
was forged and that the case of the appellant was
compounded when one of his witnesses admitted error
in the computation of the tax paid.

He, therefore urged the court to uphold the Federal
High Court judgment and to dismiss the appeal for
lacking in merit.

The Peoples Democratic Party and INEC did not oppose
the appeal of Governor Ikpeazu.
In another appeal by governor Ikpeazu against the
judgment granted Messrs Obasi Uba Ekeagbara and
Chukwuemeka Uba, the appellate court was prayed to
set aside the judgment on the ground that the
originating summons was not signed as required by law.
Olanipekun who argued the case of the governor
informed the court that the amended originating
summon signed later by a counsel cannot cure the
defect on the ground that a defective originating
summon cannot be cured by an amendment.

However, opposing the appeal, counsel to Ekeagbara
and Chukwu, Dr. Alex Izinyon SAN submitted that the
address of Olanipekun on the defective originating
summon cannot take the place of evidence before the
appellate court.

He insisted that the argument of counsel cannot take
the place of evidence before the court.
Izinyon insisted that the amended originating summons
contained signature of a counsel, Maxi Ozuaka, and
urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

Dr. Alex Izinyon SAN presented a previous judgement by
the presiding judge,Justice Morenikeji Ogunwumiju, in
which she ruled that any form of false information
presented by an office seeker, whether such false
information is directly relevant or not, marks out the
presenter of such false information as dangerous to the
society and unfit to hold public office.

Justice Morenikeji Ogunwumiju, after taking arguments
from counsels in the six appeals, reserved judgment
and informed the parties that the date for judgments
will be communicated to lawyers.