[TRANSCRIPT] What Happened In Court Between Emefiele And INEC/AGF Over Presidential Aspiration

GODWIN EMEFIELE V. INEC & 1 OR

JUSTICE A. R. MOHAMMED

FEDERAL HIGH COURT (COURT 3)

MONDAY, 9TH MAY, 2022

LIST OF APPEARANCES FOR THE PLAINTIFF

1.CHIEF MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN
2.RICHARD EBIE, ESQ
3.S. E. O. MALIKI, ESQ
4.QUEEN-UBOKUTOM I. UMANA (MISS)
5.OSILAMA MIKE OZEKHOME, ESQ
6.DIXON ODILI, ESQ
7.AISOSA IRIAGBONSE OGBORO (MISS)
8.OSHOMHA MIKE OZEKHOME, ESQ
9.OGHENETEJIRI DJEBADAH (MISS)

LIST OF APPEARANCES FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

1.ANTHONY ONYERI, ESQ

No appearance for the 2nd Defendant.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

Court sat at 11:44 am.

Chief: The process before my lord is the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons dated 4th May but filed 5th May, 2022. We have the Plaintiff’s motion on notice for abridgement of time dated 4th May but filed 5th May, 2022, humbly asking for abridgment of time in the entire process because of the urgency of the matter. The Plaintiff also has an affidavit of Urgency dated and filed 5th May, 2022. Today, the 9th of May, 2022, we filed a motion ex parte, though it is dated 4th May, 2022.

The brief facts is that the Plaintiff is the current Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. He desires to run for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the elections coming up in February, 2022. But he is in a dilemma. Can he run? If he can run, when must he leave his office as Governor or Central Bank? Here, we are not talking about morality and sentiments. We are talking about the law as it is, not the law as it should be or as we want it to be. The law as it is today is that the Plaintiff is a public servant under the 1999 Constitution. Being a public servant, is he also a political appointee caught within the web of section 84(12) of the Electoral Act. By the way, this section of the Electoral Act has been struck down by this court in the Umuahia Division. The matter is currently on appeal but the Court of Appeal is yet to come up with a decision. Even if the Court of Appeal overturns the decision, is the plaintiff a public officer? No, he is not. Being a public servant, he is governed by section 137(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution which allows public servants to resign from office not later than 30 days from the date of the election. And this Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the fons et origo. Any other law inconsistent with is null and void as to the extent of its inconsistency.

We have a motion on notice which has been served to both parties. That motion seeks for abridgement of time to fast-track proceedings because of the urgency. It was dated 9th and filed 9th of May, 2022. It was not dated 4th May, 2022, as I had earlier erroneously stated. It was because of its urgency that we have seek to maintain the status quo antebellum as 5th May, 2022, and that is because by Wednesday, 11th May, 2022, the timeline for collecting the form for expression of interest to run for the office of President would expire. In just two days’ time. The timeline for the primaries, congresses and conventions for the political parties for the presidential election comes up on the 30th of May, 2022, which is barely 3 weeks from now. We pray my lord to grant an injunction to protect the Plaintiff’s interest as he has run under the umbrella of the court. That motion ex parte is supported by a 27-paragraph affidavit. there is also a written address and one Exhibit (Exhibit A), which is the judgment of this honourable court anchored by Justice Anareke in Suit FHC/UM/CS/26/2022, where this court has said that section 84 of the Electoral Act is void. I humbly move in terms of the motion for maintenance of status quo.

Court: Having read the Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of the motion, particularly paragraphs 3(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and paragraphs 4(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o) (p), (q) and (s) and after reading the written address, I hereby make the following orders:

1.An order directing the Defendants to come to court on Thursday, 12th May, 2022, to show why the order for maintenance of status quo ante bellum should not be granted.
2.The Plaintiff is ordered to deliver all processes to the Defendants, including a hearing notice.

This matter is adjourned to Thursday, 12th May, 2022, for the Defendants to show cause as to why the order for maintenance of status quo ante bellum should not be granted and subsequent ruling on the motion.