Breaking News
Translate

Tension in Enugu as court rules on Chime’s eligibility

By IFEANYI OKOLIE
Anxeity has nowenveloped Enugu State as the people await an Abuja  Federal High Court’s judgment on the validity or otherwise of Governor Sullivan Chime’s nomination as the ruling People’s Democratic Party’s, PDP, candidate for the 2011 election.

The court, presided over by Justice Adamu Bello had fixed Monday, April 23 for judgment on the matter.

However, there are fears of possible dramatic turn of events between supporters of Governor Sullivan Chime and those of Anayo Onwuegbu and Alex Obiechina, all governorship aspirants on the platform of the party in 2011  over which of them would eventually end up as the authentic flag bearer of the party.

The political tussle in the state started in 2010 following the disagreement between the governor and the  former National Chairman of the PDP,  Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, over  the chairmanship of Nwodo’s political ward in Ukehe, Igboetiti Local Government.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC had told the Abuja Court that the primaries under which Chime emerged  failed to meet legal requirements, thus strenghtening the belief by the opposition that he would eventually lose the case.

Alex Obiechina, on his own, is challenging his exclusion from the primary after he had satisfied the requirements of the PDP leading to the election. He wants the outcome of the primary nullified just as the Anayo Onwuegbu’s faction argued that the primary, which produced Chime and the State and National Assembly candidates, did not comply with the 2010 Electoral Act and the PDP constitution.

It therefore wants the court to void Chime’s election and reinstate him as the governor since he was the candidate produced at a primary, which was conducted in accordance with the 2010 Electoral Act and the PDP constitution.

However, whoever is declared winner or loser on Monday would have to wait longer to either realise his mandate or otherwise, as the matter would expectedly get to the Supreme Court.


Disclaimer

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.