The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday
reserved judgment in the motion filed by a factional chairman of the
Peoples Democratic Party, Ahmed Makarfi, and the faction’s secretary,
Ben Obi, seeking leave to appeal against the Federal High Court’s
judgment which recognised Jimoh Ibrahim as the PDP’s governorship
candidate in Ondo State.
The Independent National Electoral
Commission on Thursday, acting on the June 29 judgment of Justice Okon
Abang and another enforcement judgment of the same judge on October 14,
dropped Eyitayo Jegede’s name and replaced it with that of Ibrahim.
The governorship election in Ondo State is slated for November 26.
The proceedings of Friday during which a
joint motion filed by Makarfi, Obi and others were heard lasted about
six and a half hours.
Makarfi and Obi filed their motion in
the appeal CA/A/155/2016 seeking an extension of time to appeal and the
leave to appeal as interested parties against the June 29.
Jegede also filed similar motion in his appeal numbered CA/A/155C/2016, but was adjourned till Tuesday for hearing.
Makarfi, Obi and Jegede needed to file
the motion seeking leave because they were not parties to the suit at
the Federal High Court and failed to appeal within the statutory 90 days
within which they ought to do so.
Makarfi and Obi’s motion argued by their
lawyer, Mr. Dayo Akinlaja (SAN), was opposed by the lawyer to the
respondents, including the Biyi Poroye-led faction of the PDP in Ondo
State, Alex Izinyon (SAN), on Friday.
Poroye’s faction which produced Ibrahim
as the party’s candidate belonged to the Ali Modu Sheriff camp, while
Jegede belonged to Makarfi faction.
PDP’s lawyer, Olagoke Fakunle (SAN),
also opposed the motion. But INEC’s lawyer, Mr. Nelson Anih, said the
commission would remain neutral. After the hearing, the court reserved
judgment till a date to be announced later.
But Jegede’s similar motion seeking to
appeal as an interested party was adjourned for hearing till Tuesday
because the respondents were only served on Thursday and needed time to
respond to it.
There was however a drama over the
appeal filed by the PDP when the lawyer, Robert Emukpero, who filed the
motion and Fakunle both announced appearances for the party. The motion
was adjourned till Saturday to sort out the party’s appearance and for
hearing.
Sheriff, Makarfi and Obi were present in court on Friday.
Meanwhile, Jegede withdrew his motion
before the Court of Appeal in Abuja seeking to restrain the Independent
National Electoral Commission over his candidacy in the forthcoming
November 26 election.
The Chairman of the Makarfi-led faction
of the PDP in Ondo State, Mr. Clement Faboyede, and the Secretary, Chief
Oyedele Ibine, also withdrew their joint motion for stay execution on
Friday.
Their lawyer, Akinlaja, told the Justice
Jumai Shankey-led three-man appeal panel that the withdrawal of the
motions for stay of execution had been overtaken by the event of the
INEC’s decision to substitute Jegede’s name with that of Jimoh Ibrahim
late on Thursday.
While earlier withdrawing Faboyede’s
motion, Akinlaja said the motion had become stale in view of the action
the INEC took on Thursday.
But when it was the turn of Jegede’s case, Akinlaja was reluctant to withdraw the motion for stay of execution.
Rather, he urged the court to order INEC to reverse the substitution of Jegede’s name with that of Ibrahim.
He said, “Yesterday, the 10th respondent
decided to substitute the name of the applicant with the name of one
Jimoh Ibrahim notwithstanding that they have been served with the
applicant’s motion.
“On the basis of that I will be praying
your lordship to order the reversal of what the 10th respondent has done
which was designed to truncate the hearing of the application.”
When asked by the appeal panel if his
application was proper in view of the fact that his client’s motion
seeking the leave to appeal in the case as an interested party had yet
to be heard, he cited section 30 of the Court of Appeal Rules to argue
that an application to appeal also constituted a proper appeal.
But he later succumbed to withdraw the motion when he realised the stance of the appeal panel.
The court then struck it out but refused
to grant the prayer of the respondents’ lawyers for an award of cost
against the applicant.