Court rejects suit challenging Akpabio’s qualification

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal querying the qualification of Senator Godswill Akpabio to contest the 2011 governorship primaries of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The appeal was filed by Imo Edet Udo.

The court held that the appeal was filed out of time and that the originating summons, filed at the trial court, was caught by Section 2285(9) and (12) of the Constitution (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act, 2017).

Udo, a former Akwa Ibom State Commissioner for Youth and Sports, contested against Akpabio in the 2011 governorship primaries. He is challenging Akpabio’s qualification to participate in the primaries on the grounds that he did not pay tax for the three previous years in line with PDP’s guideline.

The ex-Commissioner took his case to the Federal High Court, and the court held, among others, that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to determine the case, a decision Udo appealed at the Court of Appeal, Calabar.

The Appeal Court also ruled against Udo by holding that the issue raised in the case was not justifiable. The appellate court opined that for the appellant’s complaint to be justifiable, it ought to have occurred the day the primary election was held.

Udo subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court on January 24, 2014. He prayed the apex court to disqualify Akpabio and to overturn the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The Supreme Court did not attend to Udo’s appeal, despite his complaints of undue delays, until April 20, 2015, when the court directed his lawyer, Adebayo Adelodun (SAN), to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that it had become academic.

The court subsequently dismissed the appeal by an April 20, 2015, order. Akpabio had then concluded his second term as governor and was on his way to being a Senator.

However, in a fresh motion filed on December 24, 2018, Udo, through another lawyer, Usukuma Antia, prayed the Supreme Court to relist the appeal, which it dismissed on April 20, 2015. He argued that his former lawyer acted without his consent when he withdrew the appeal.

When the fresh motion came up for hearing on February 11, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court, after asking Antia to withdraw it, struck it out on grounds that it was caught by the Fourth Alteration Act, 2017.

Justice Musa Datijo Muhammad, who read the lead ruling, noted that the originating summons was not filed within 14 days of the occurrence of the cause of action, as required under Section 285 of the Constitution.

Other members of the panel, Justices Kumai Bayang Akaahs, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, John Okoro and Uwani Musa Abba-Aji, agreed with the lead ruling.