Though the 2015 governorship election in Enugu State, has been concluded and Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi sworn-in, yet there are insinuations that echoes from the 2011 governorship election before it may still be haunting political stakeholders in the state. This is because of a 2011 gubernatorial pre-election case filed by Dr. Chukwuemeka Obechina of the PDP still pending at the Supreme Court which is due for hearing on Wednesday, April 6.
Obechina was an aspirant who filed a court case who filed a case against the PDP governorship candidate for that election, Chief Sullivan Chime who he claimed was not validly nominated.
Interestingly, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC had in its submission also concurred with Obechina that the primaries that produced Chime as the PDP candidate was not validly nominated.
Interestingly, the case has inched through the processes and despite the exit of Chime from office in 2015, the case has yet to be concluded. Obechina in a chat alleged some suspicious hands involved in trying to frustrate the case. “The level of desperation to frustrate this case, if possible from being heard, is very worrisome and raises serious concerns to my supporters about my life. “I am making it clear that should anything strange happen to me, I hold those in government solely responsible as I have no other enemy.
They way they are going about this case is not noble and certainly outside the dictates of sustainable democracy. My only hope is in the Almighty God and on the fact that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, a man of great simplicity and a legal icon of impeccable character, will lead our highly respected and equally impeccable Justices of the Supreme Court to boldly deliver justice to this case without fear or favour not minding whose horse is gored, as always shown in the past track records of their judgements.”
However, lawyers remain divided on the relevance of the case given that Chime has finished his term in office. Some argue that once four years had lapsed and another general election held, a pre- election case on it becomes academic. Among lawyers who hold this view is Mr. C. Egwu, who argued that ‘’a pre-election case in court becomes academic once a period of four years lapses and another person is elected into same office through a general election.
This is because the office under which the appellant seeks to serve has become spent.” However, another lawyer Mr. Henry Osigbemhe, differed saying that pre-election cases in courts are not time barred depending on the relief and office being sought in the court. Noting Section 64(1) of the 1999 Constitution which stipulates a four year period within which the Senate and the House of Representatives shall stand dissolved, he affirmed that the same was not applicable to executive offices. “Senators are merely elected to secure seats in the House. Thus if a person has a senatorial pre-election case and the suit is not determined and four years lapses from the date of the first sitting of the Senate, then the term of office upon which he was elected, if he wins the case, has lapsed as the Senate has been dissolved,” he argued. He added that “pre-election suits for the president and governors are not time barred as the Constitution donated the tenure of office to their lawfully elected individuals and not to the parties that sponsored them and not also to the House that has a fixed life span.
Besides, the Constitution further made the date for the taking of their Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office indeterminate. But the pre-election cases for Senators, House of Representatives and State Assembly members and Area Council Chairmen in FCT are time barred if the House is dissolved and the relief sought in court is only political and does not include civil damages.
It will constitute great havoc to lump the provisions of sections 64(1), 105(1), 180(2) and 135(2) of our Constitution together and interpret them as if same provision. Such interpretation shall seriously violate the provisions, contents and the spirit of the Constitution. “The problem is that many people do not take pains to read our Constitution and see the different provisions for the various elective office holders in our country and thus tag all pre-election cases as time barred once another general election is held. Unfortunately too, a pre-election case involving presidential or gubernatorial election has not come up, after another general election, to the Supreme Court for an interesting and vibrant constitutional debate.
Obechina was an aspirant who filed a court case who filed a case against the PDP governorship candidate for that election, Chief Sullivan Chime who he claimed was not validly nominated.
Interestingly, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC had in its submission also concurred with Obechina that the primaries that produced Chime as the PDP candidate was not validly nominated.
Interestingly, the case has inched through the processes and despite the exit of Chime from office in 2015, the case has yet to be concluded. Obechina in a chat alleged some suspicious hands involved in trying to frustrate the case. “The level of desperation to frustrate this case, if possible from being heard, is very worrisome and raises serious concerns to my supporters about my life. “I am making it clear that should anything strange happen to me, I hold those in government solely responsible as I have no other enemy.
They way they are going about this case is not noble and certainly outside the dictates of sustainable democracy. My only hope is in the Almighty God and on the fact that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, a man of great simplicity and a legal icon of impeccable character, will lead our highly respected and equally impeccable Justices of the Supreme Court to boldly deliver justice to this case without fear or favour not minding whose horse is gored, as always shown in the past track records of their judgements.”
However, lawyers remain divided on the relevance of the case given that Chime has finished his term in office. Some argue that once four years had lapsed and another general election held, a pre- election case on it becomes academic. Among lawyers who hold this view is Mr. C. Egwu, who argued that ‘’a pre-election case in court becomes academic once a period of four years lapses and another person is elected into same office through a general election.
This is because the office under which the appellant seeks to serve has become spent.” However, another lawyer Mr. Henry Osigbemhe, differed saying that pre-election cases in courts are not time barred depending on the relief and office being sought in the court. Noting Section 64(1) of the 1999 Constitution which stipulates a four year period within which the Senate and the House of Representatives shall stand dissolved, he affirmed that the same was not applicable to executive offices. “Senators are merely elected to secure seats in the House. Thus if a person has a senatorial pre-election case and the suit is not determined and four years lapses from the date of the first sitting of the Senate, then the term of office upon which he was elected, if he wins the case, has lapsed as the Senate has been dissolved,” he argued. He added that “pre-election suits for the president and governors are not time barred as the Constitution donated the tenure of office to their lawfully elected individuals and not to the parties that sponsored them and not also to the House that has a fixed life span.
Besides, the Constitution further made the date for the taking of their Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office indeterminate. But the pre-election cases for Senators, House of Representatives and State Assembly members and Area Council Chairmen in FCT are time barred if the House is dissolved and the relief sought in court is only political and does not include civil damages.
It will constitute great havoc to lump the provisions of sections 64(1), 105(1), 180(2) and 135(2) of our Constitution together and interpret them as if same provision. Such interpretation shall seriously violate the provisions, contents and the spirit of the Constitution. “The problem is that many people do not take pains to read our Constitution and see the different provisions for the various elective office holders in our country and thus tag all pre-election cases as time barred once another general election is held. Unfortunately too, a pre-election case involving presidential or gubernatorial election has not come up, after another general election, to the Supreme Court for an interesting and vibrant constitutional debate.
