Court reserves judgment in suit to disqualify Soludo from seeking re-election
APC chieftain commends Soludo, Monumental loss to Nigeria, Soludo distributes free farm inputs, Soludo to opposition, Reps member appeals to Soludo over Ogwuaniocha community, disqualify Soludo from seeking re-election
Justice Amina Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Awka Judicial Division has reserved judgment in the suit, seeking to disqualify Anambra State Governor, Professor Charles Soludo from seeking re-election, for using unelected councils to run the affairs of the 21 local government areas in the State, contrary to the Nigerian Constitution and a subsisting court judgment.
Justice Mohammed adjourned the suit for judgment on a date yet to be announced, after all the parties in the matter adopted their written addresses and other processes before her court on Tuesday.
The suit initiated by an activist and former Anambra governorship aspirant, Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, also seeks to ban three of Soludo’s predecessors, Dr. Chris Ngige, Peter Obi and Willie Obiano from holding public office for the same reason.
The first to eight defendants respectively, include the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Governor of Anambra State, Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Anambra State and Anambra State House of Assembly.
Others are former governors-Ngige, Obi and Obiano- for themselves and on behalf of their transition chairmen and councilors, and Mr. Livinus Onyenwe for himself and on behalf of transition chairmen who served under the Soludo administration.
Okonkwo who is also demanding for exemplary damages of N100 billion in his favour, brought the suit pursuant to the subsisting judgment of Justice Lewis Allagoa of the Federal High Court in suit no FHC/EN/CS/90/2005.
He equally wants an order of the court to compel the 2nd to 8th defendants to render public account before the court, of all funds, illegally expended by them or agents and privies, during their respective administrations, while executing their illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of offices at the local government council areas in Anambra State.
Before the court adjourned for judgment, Okonkwo, who appeared for himself, sought the leave of the court to adopt his written addresses, containing his arguments.
The plaintiff told the court that the originating summons contain only one question: “Whether the continued violation of the 2nd to 8th defendants of Exhibit A, the judgment in suit number FHC/EN/CS/90/2005 between the parties delivered on September 2006, which execution has taken effect, the defendants not appealing same nor obtaining any stay/injunction, the plaintiff is entitled to use as a foundation the (unreported judgment, Exhibit A) to seek additional reliefs against the first defendant and for the court to make declaratory reliefs and directing orders for the protection/give efficacy and enforcement of the rule of law under the constitution of Nigeria.”
Citing the case of Besong vs. Ochineke (2023), Okonkwo argued that the case is not a matter of affidavit and counter affidavit, but predicated on a valid subsisting judgment, against which there is no appeal, and backed up by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney-General of the Federation vs. the Attorney-General of Abia State and 35 others (2024).
While asking the court to also consider the case of Ajao vs. Alao (1986), he maintained that the validity of a judgment cannot be questioned if there is no appeal against it.
He urged the court to protect its own judgment, which has never been appealed, relying on the case of Oguebego vs. PDP (2016).
Responding on behalf of the 2nd to 8th defendants, a Senior State Counsel in the Anambra State Ministry of Justice, Peter Odili, reminded the court that they filed a preliminary objection, asking the court to decline jurisdiction on the matter.
Odili said the affected defendants also filed a reply on point of law the plaintiff’s opposition to their notice of preliminary objection.
In adopting their own written addresses, he urged the court to decline jurisdiction and dismiss the originating summons for lacking in merit.
Earlier, Justice Mohammed granted the 2nd to 8th defendants motion on notice for the extension of time, to regularise their counter affidavit, written addresses and other processes in opposition to the plaintiff’s originating summons and deeming the processes as properly filed and served, the appropriate fees, having been paid.
