David Umahi, the governor of Ebonyi State, his Deputy Kelechi Igwe, and 16 House of Assembly members have appealed Tuesday’s judgments that sacked them for defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the All Progressives Congress, APC.
In two notices of appeal filed on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, by their lawyer, Chukwuma Machukwu Umeh (SAN), Umahi, Igwe, and others are praying the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgement handed out by Justice Inyang Ekwo of. the Federal High Court, Abuja.
In the notice of appeal filed for Umahi and Igwe 11 grounds of appeal were raised, while five grounds were raised in the notice of appeal filed for the 16 lawmakers and on which basis they want the appellate court to reverse the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
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,
The appellants argued, in the notice of appeal by Umahi and Igwe, 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.
“The Hon trial court was virtually setting aside the Supreme court of Nigeria’s decision in AG Federation v. Atiku Abubakar & 3 ORS (2007) LCN/3799(SC)to the effect that there is no constitutional provisions prohibiting President or vice and invariably the Governor and or deputy Governor from defecting to another political party,” they said.
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.
“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 said.
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.
They further argued 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.
The appellants 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.
“The trial court’s interpretation of what amount to the Federal High Court having the powers of State High Court under the Constitution was wrong.
“Power of court and jurisdiction are not the same. The appellants are state officers and not federal officers.” the appellants said.
They also argued that the trial court erred and arrived at perverse findings when it held that: ‘l take judicial notice that the 20″ Appellant is the Speaker of the Ebonyi State House of Assembly…when the Speaker of the House of Assembly has involved the provisions of Section 109 of the Constitution becomes not applicable…’
“It was not the case of the 1st respondent that the 20th appellant was the Speaker of the Ebonyi State House of Assembly.
“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 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
“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 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
“The learned trial court erred and misapplied the law when it held that the facts and circumstances of this case has made the provisions of section 109(1) (g) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) inapplicable.
“There was no evidence before the Hon trial court to show that the Respondent complied with the provisions of section 109(1) (g) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
“The provisions of section 109(1) (g) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are mandatory,” they said.
