By Ikechukwu Nnochiri
ABUJA – The Abuja Division of the Appeal Court, yesterday, declined to sack Governor Sullivan Chime of Enugu State from office, just as it dismissed an appeal that was lodged before it by a Chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the state, Chief Alexander Chukwuemeka Obiechina.

Obiechina had pleaded the appellate court to among other things, determine whether there was a valid special congress or primary election held in Enugu State on January 12, 2011, in which Chime was nominated as the PDP candidate

Challenging the earlier verdict of a Federal High Court in Abuja on the matter, the appellant, contended that the laid down condition precedent for nominating a candidate for the governorship position, as enshrined in sections 85(1) and 87(1)(4)(b) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) was not fulfilled in the case of governor Chime.

He told the court that Chime was handpicked through a kangaroo process, even he prayed the appeal court to nullify the said illegal primary election and order the Governor to forthwith vacate the office, arguing that January 9, 2011, was the validly set date for the gubernatorial primaries in Enugu State.

However, in their judgment yesterday, the court held that the suit was an academic exercise and therefore lacked merit.

The appellate court panel which was headed by Justice M. D. Dongban-Mensem dismissed the appeal, saying Chime’s election could not be nullified based on the grounds set out in the appeal.

The court also pointed out that the appellant did not participate in the said election he was challenging.

“It is no longer possible to nullify his (Chime’s) election on account of the said wrongful nomination. The suit is an academic exercise. The applicant was not a candidate in the said election and he is not asking to be declared the governor,” the court held.

Aside Governor Chime, other respondents in the suit was the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC and the PDP.

It will be recalled that the high court presided by Justice Adamu Bello had on May 21, 2012, declined to sack Chime from office, saying it lacked the jurisdiction to nullify his candidacy in the last general elections.

Justice Bello who maintained that the issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate for any given election was within the realm of the domestic affairs of a political party, dismissed Obiechina’s suit, stressing that the plaintiff, having failed to participate in any of the primary elections conducted in Enugu state by the PDP, lacked the locus-standi to seek the nullification of the said electoral processes.

Though INEC had in a written address it filed before the high court, queried the legality of the January 12, 2011, primary election that produced Governor Chime as the gubernatorial candidate of the PDP in Enugu state, insisting that it was conducted in substantial non-compliance with the provision of section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended however, Justice Bello, held that “an aspirant who did not participate in the primaries of a political party, does not have the right to challenge the outcome of such primaries.”

The high court further relied on the case of the former Governor of Bayelsa State, Timipre Sylva, and stressed that PDP had the right to bar the plaintiff or any other aspirant from participating in its primary election.

Nevertheless, in his six-grounds of appeal, Obiechiana, contended that the high court was in obvious error when it held that he did not participate in the primaries, “when all the parties agree that he was such a candidate.”

He further argued that considering that the PDP had at no time during the hearing of the suit, challenged his candidacy, “the court was in error when it struck out the appellant’s suit on the ground that the appellant was not a candidate in the said primaries,” adding that “the court misapplied the case of PDP vs Timpre Sylva and Sylva vs PDP, a consolidated appeal to the Supreme Court, when the facts are not the same.”

He argued that whereas PDP barred Sylva from contesting the primary elections, he said in the instant case, PDP, cleared him to contest the gubernatorial primaries, noting that both the party and Chime, “produced results which showed that not only did the appellant participate in the primaries but he scored votes.”

Obiechina, told the court that as a governorship aspirant in the state, he met all the requirements and was duly cleared to contest the primaries alongside the Governor and other aspirants.

He said while he was busy soliciting the support of the electorates, he heard over the State radio that Chime had won the gubernatorial ticket to fly the party’s flag in the election.

The appellant averred that upon enquiry, he discovered that the party did not fix any primaries for January 12 and it did not also notify INEC at least 21 days to the primaries as required by section 85 (1) of the Electoral Act before such primaries could be held. He further placed reliance on 13 separate exhibits he tendered before the trial court, to contend that Chime was not validly nominated ab-initio and as such, was not validly elected and should therefore vacate the office.

INEC had in a written address it filed before the lower court, washed its hands off the said controversial primary election.

According to the Commission, “with respect to primary elections said to be conducted on January 11 and 12, 2011, it can be said that what was passed as the “Notice’ was the plaintiff’s exhibit addresses to the Resident Electoral Commissioner at Enugu, which most certainly is not the same as the 1st defendant, who by the clear terms of section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 must be the Commission itself.

“This apart, the letter is dated January 10, 2011 and apparently was received on January 11, 2011, the very next day.“It gave notice of primaries scheduled for the same day. Certainly, no one should be left in doubt that the envisaged notice of 21 days was not complied with in obvious violation of section 85(1]) Added to the foregoing is the fact that the resident Electoral Commissioner cannot be regarded as the Commission, which presents a further violation.

“It stands to reason that a notice of primary election dated January 10, 2011 for the events to be held on January 11 and 12, 2011 has the potential of violating the right to equal opportunity to be voted for.

“Be that as it may, what really transpired within the party can best be considered intra party, which must be ventilated by affected members of the party. Having said that, the 1st defendant, (INEC) reiterates that there was clear non-compliance with section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010”, INEC submitted.