Supreme Court Plans Special Panel on Dispute Over Ekiti APC Gov Ticket

The Supreme Court has decided to constitute a special panel of seven members to determine the dispute arising from the January 27, 2022 governorship primary of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ekiti State.

The apex court took the decision last Thursday at the mention of an appeal filed by Engineer Kayode Ojo, an aspirant in the primary, who claimed to have won the primary and insisted that he is the authentic candidate of the APC for the last governorship election in Ekiti State.

A five-member panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice John Okoro directed Ojo’s legal team led by Alex Izinyon (SAN) to write the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola to constitute the seven-member panel to consider the constitutional issues thrown up by the appeal.

The court’s directive to the appellant to apply for the constitution of a full panel to hear the appeal was a sequel to an application by Izinyon.

In reaction to the court’s observation that the 180 days stipulated for the hearing of such pre-elections cases had lapsed, Izinyon noted that there were constitutional issues raised in the appeal, requiring a formal determination.

Izinyon then applied that a full panel of the court is constituted to enable the Supreme Court to make a departure from its position on Section 285 of the Constitution.

Lawyers to the respondents in the appeal marked: SC/CV/1312/2022 did not oppose the appellant’s request for the construction of a full panel.

In the ruling, Justice Okoro ordered the appellant to make a formal application to the CJN for the constitution of the full panel.

He then adjourned sine die (indefinitely) pending when the CJN would constitute the full panel to decide the matter as requested by the appellant.

Ojo’s appeal is against the October 7, 2022 judgment by the Court of Appeal in Ado Ekiti, which, though found that the trial court was wrong not to have determined the case on its merit, as required under Section 285(8) of the Constitution, failed to invoke its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to re-hear the appellant’s case on the merit.

Justice Moore Adumein, in the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, held among others, that “it is ludicrous that the trial court abandoned the consideration and resolution of the main dispute between the parties and aborted, terminated or truncated an important judicial exercise or process at an elementary or interlocutory stage.

“What the trial court did in this case, was to abandon its sacred duty of deciding the matters in dispute or controversy and to punish the appellant because his learned counsel signed two processes with dissimilar signatures.

“The duty of the trial court, like any other court, was and/or is to do substantial justice to the parties before it and not to inflict avoidable pains on any of them by leaning towards an obvious technical justice.

“To say the least, what the trial court did, in this case, was a travesty justice which is one and the same thing as injustice itself,” Justice Adumein said in the judgment on the appeal marked: CA/EK/65/2022.

Ojo had, shortly after the primary, sued at the Federal High Court, alleging among others, irregularities in the process and prayed to be declared the actual candidate of the party.

In a judgment on August 4, 2022 Justice Babs Kuewumi of the Federal High Court, Ado Ekiti upheld the preliminary objection raised by the APC against the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/151/2022 and struck it out on the grounds of want of jurisdiction.

Justice Kuewumi however failed to consider the suit on merit as required under Section 285(8) of the Constitution, an action condemned by the Court of Appeal.