Gov Umahi, deputy, lawmakers appeal judgment sacking them from office

Umahi

The governor of Ebonyi, Engr David Umahi, his Deputy Eric Kelechi Igwe, and 16 members of the Ebonyi State House of Assembly have appealed the Tuesday’s judgments of a Federal High Court, Abuja that sacked them for defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

In two notices of appeal filed on Wednesday by their lawyer, Chukwuma Machukwu Umeh (SAN), Umahi, Igwe and others are praying the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgement of the trial court delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo.

The notice of appeal filed for Umahi and Igwe was hinged on 11 grounds, while five grounds were raised in the notice of appeal filed for the 16 lawmakers and on which basis, where-in they want the appellate court to reverse the judgment of the trial Court.

The affected lawmakers are: Francis Ogbonnaya Nwifuru (the Speaker), Odefa Obasi Odefa, Victor Uzoma Chukwu, Kigbsley Ikoro, Benjamin (surname not supplied), Joseph Unuhu, Nkemka Okoro, Anthony Nwegede, Chinwe Nwachukwu, Onu Nwonye, Friday L. Nwuhuo, Moses Odunwa, Chinedu Awo, Chinedu Onah, Chukwuma Igwe and Chukwu Arinze Lucas,

Umahi and Igwe argued in their notice of appeal that the trial court erred in law when it held that the provision of Section 308 of the Constitution was not applicable to the case.

They also contended that the trial court erred in law and misdirected itself when it relied on Sections 68 and 109 of the Constitution to hold that the appellants, having defected from the PDP to the APC offended the provisions of the Constitution and must vacate their offices as Governor and Deputy Governor respectively.

ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

“There is no specific mention of Governor and Deputy Governor in the provisions of section 68 and 109 respectively of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“By relying on sections 68 and 109 of the Constitution the trial court assumed the role of the legislator and arrogated to itself the powers of amendment of the Constitution

“There is no provision in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which states that Governor or deputy Governor will vacate his office if he defects from his political party to another political party,” they argued.

The appellants added that the trial court erred in law and overruled the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria when it held that the ownership of votes cast during the governorship election of 2019 belongs to the first respondent (the PDP) and not the appellants.

“The trial court relied on Amaechi v. INEC and Faleke v. INEC when same are no longer the law on the ownership of votes cast in an election,” they said.

That the trial court erred in law when it held that the appellants are deemed to have been resigned from their offices as Governor and Deputy Governor of Ebonyi State.

“Section 180(1)( c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999( as amended) never contemplated, implied resignation but resignation signed by the appellants and tendered to the Speaker of the House of Assembly of Ebonyi State. The trial court had no evidence before it of appellants’ resigning from their offices,” they said.

In the notice of appeal by the 16 lawmakers, it was argued that the trial court erred when it assumed jurisdiction over the case on the alleged defection of the lawmakers whereas the Constitution bestowed powers on the Speaker and the state House of Assembly to decide the fate of members that defect.

“By Section 109(1)(g)and (2) of the Constitution, the removal of the 4th to 19th appellants (the affected lawmakers) is an internal affair of the 1st and 2nd appellants (the Speaker and the House of Assembly).

“There was no evidence before the trial court that the 1st respondent (the PDP) activated the said provision,” they said and added that the trial court was in error when it assumed jurisdiction on the issue of their defection when it has no jurisdiction over the same.

“Power of court and jurisdiction are not the same. The appellants are state officers and not federal officers.” the appellants said and added, “It was also not the case of the 1st respondent that there was any difficulty or obstacle in igniting the proceeding envisaged in Section 109 (1) (g) and (2) of the Constitution.

“The learned trial judge descended into the arena of parties. The findings of the trial judge were not born on the evidence before the court.

“The erroneous findings of facts by the honourable trial court cannot override clear constitutional provisions of Section 109(1) (g) and (2) of the Constitution,” they argued.

They said the trial court erred and misapplied the law when it held that the facts and circumstances of the case has made the provisions of section 109(1) (g) and (2) of the Constitution inapplicable and noted that, there was no evidence before the lower trial court to show that the Respondent complied with the provisions of section 109(1) (g) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which they said are mandatory.

How Workplace Sexual Harassment Forces Many Out Of Their Dream Jobs

Gov Umahi, deputy, lawmakers appeal judgment sacking them from office

Marburg Virus: What You Need To Know About Disease Recently Detected In West Africa

Gov Umahi, deputy, lawmakers appeal judgment sacking them from office

Adeoye Faith