Four indigenes of Benue State have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to restrain former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Michael Aondoakaa, from contesting the 2027 governorship election in the state.
The plaintiffs, through their lawyer, Fredricks Itula, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged the judge, Joyce Abdulmalik, to grant their prayers.
|
|
They cited a previous Supreme Court judgement which barred Mr Aondoakaa from holding any public office.
Mr Aondoakaa is vying for the 2027 governorship election in Benue on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
|
|
|
|---|
The applicants who described themselves as registered voters in Benue State, are David Ejembi, Aondoaver Teryila, Joseph Okpanachi and Benedict Orkume. The suit is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2152/2026.
The plaintiffs sued the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the PDP, and Mr Aondoakaa.
They urged the court to declare that INEC is under constitutional obligation to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Michael Kaase Aondoakaa v. Obot (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1824) 523, by stopping PDP from sponsoring Aondoakaa to contest in the 2027 governorship election in Benue.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
They argued that this aligns with the provisions of sections 235 and 287(1), read together with the meaning of “public office of a state” in Section 318(1) of the Nigerian constitution.
They prayed the court for an order of declaration that, by a combined construction of the above provisions of the law, INEC is under constitutional obligation to comply with the apex court judgment.
They also prayed for an order of declaration that, by a combined construction of the above provisions of the law, PDP is under constitutional obligation to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court, by terminating the sponsoring of Aondoakaa’s candidature for the poll.
The plaintiffs, therefore, sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the commission from allowing PDP to sponsor Aondoakaa to contest for the 2027 Benue governorship election.
They equally prayed the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining Aondoakaa from contesting in the election.
During Monday’s hearing, Mr Itula informed Judge Abdulmalik that he was unable to serve the court processes on Mr Aondoakaa.
Against this development, the lawyer said an ex-parte motion for substituted service had been filed.
He said the motion sought an order to serve Mr Aondoakaa, the defendant, through the PDP’s office.
After moving the motion, the judge granted the application.
She ruled that a copy of the service shall be forwarded to the court as evidence of service.
The judge also ordered that hearing notices be served on all the defendants. She then adjourned the case until 29 September for further mention.
Why Supreme Court declared Aondoakaa unfit for public office
On 10 December 2021, the Supreme Court affirmed Mr Aondoakaa’s lifetime disqualification from public office, for using his office as the AGF to frustrate the implementation of a court judgement.
Concurring with the decisions of both the lower Federal High Court and Court of Appeal in the unanimous decision, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court led by Mary Peter-Odili (now retired) dismissed the appeal against the lower court’s judgement.
Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, the future Chief Justice of Nigeria, who delivered the lead judgement, held that “The appellant (Aondoakaa), as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria was reckless and acted in a manner most unbecoming of the occupant of such an exalted office.”
The case stemmed from the primary election of the PDP ahead of the 2007 election for the Uyo Federal Constituency of Akwa Ibom State.
Emmanuel Obot, who commenced the suit at the Federal High Court, had emerged as the winner of the primary election.
He said his name was presented to INEC, but only to be later substituted unlawfully with another name.
On 12 December 2007, the Court of Appeal, Calabar division, ordered the President of the Court of Appeal to empanel a new tribunal to hear and determine Mr Obot’s petition in Uyo.
But Mr Aondoakaa, in his capacity as the AGF, wrote the President of the Court of Appeal not to give effect to the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The then President of the Court of Appeal, Ayo Salami (now retired), however, ignored Mr Aondoakaa’s letter, and went ahead to set up a new panel of judges for the tribunal.
On 18 April 2008, the new election tribunal panel gave its judgement ordering that Mr Obot be sworn into the House of Representatives to represent Uyo Federal Constituency.
Affirming the tribunal’s judgement on 2 December 2009, the Court of Appeal ordered INEC to issue a certificate of return to Mr Obot.
By virtue of Section 246(2) of the Nigerian constitution, the decision of the Court of Appeal on legislative elections is final.
But Mr Aondoakaa, again, wrote the then INEC chairman, Maurice Iwu, to disregard the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which he described in the letter as “obvious desecration of the institution of the judiciary.”
Not done, Mr Aondoakaa wrote the Dimeji Bankole, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, to disregard the judgement but “to allow the status quo ante to remain until the last word is heard from the Supreme Court.”
With his letters to INEC and the House of Representatives, Mr Aondoakaa prevented Mr Obot from being sworn in.
Offended by Mr Aondoakaa’s actions, Mr Obot filed a suit on 9 May 2009, asking the Federal High Court, Calabar Division, to declare him unfit to hold public office.
Mr Aondoakaa, who was still in office as of the time, was sued both in his personal and official capacity.
Mr Obot said Mr Aondoakaa deployed his office as AGF to frustrate the judgement ordering his inauguration as a House of Representatives member by writing letters to relevant authorities preventing him from being sworn in until his term expired.
He described Mr Aondoakaa’s actions as being informed by his shared pecuniary interest with Bassey Etim, from whom the Court of Appeal’s judgement retrieved the House of Representatives seat.
Delivering judgement on Mr Obot’s suit on 1 June 2010, the Federal High Court judge, Adeniyi Ademola (now retired), ruled that Mr Aondoakaa was “not a competent, fit and proper person to hold office” regarding the oaths of allegiance and office. He also awarded N50 million damages against him in favour of Mr Obot.
As of that time, Mr Aondokaa had left office.
Court of Appeal’s decision
Mr Aondoakaa appealed to the Court of Appeal in Calabar.
On 3 September 2015, the court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Federal High Court judgement.
The Court of Appeal in its own decision affirming the verdict, said Mr Aondoakaa “undermined and subverted the rule of law, the due administration of justice and the independence, authority and integrity of the judiciary,” the court had ruled.
Joseph Oyewole, a member of the three-man panel of the Court of Appeal (now a Justice of the Supreme Court), said, “It is unthinkable that the occupier of the exalted office of Attorney General would subvert the ends of justice, as was crudely done in this case by the appellant.”
He said a person occupying the AGF office “should epitomise all that is good and noble in the legal profession”.
“That office should never again be occupied by individuals of such poor quality as the appellant,” he added.
Drawing a contrast between what was said to be Mr Aondoakaa’s desecration of the judiciary and his filing of the appeal to seek justice from the same institution, Mr Oyewole said, “It is ironic that the appellant should approach the same temple he so brazenly desecrated for succor against the consequences of his appalling conduct.”
Mr Aondoakaa unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to set aside its judgement affirming the Court of Appeal’s decision.
(NAN)
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
