By Tobi Soniyi, Abuja
Published: Tuesday, 17 Jul 2007

The court sat for seven hours and heard all the parties in the case, including the Independent National Electoral Commission, after which it fixed judgment in the case for Friday, July 20, 2007.

Even though the case leading to the appeal was instituted before Omeihia was elected the governor of the state, he raised section 308 which grants serving governors immunity from suit, as a defence.

His lawyer, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), said that immunity was an issue to be considered before going into the appeal as it raised the fundamental issue on jurisdiction.

He said that the appropriate order the court should make was to send the case back to the trial court so that those issues in which evidence was not led could be heard.

Ukala added that the matter before the court was a civil cause, adding that section 308 of the constitution stipulates that a holder of the office of the governor is immune from prosecution.

Counsel to INEC, Amaechi Iwuewu (SAN), also raised the issue of indictment of the former Speaker of the House of Assembly by the EFCC and urged the court to allow him bring evidence to prove the allegation or indictment.

Replying, counsel to the appellant, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), said the issue before the court was a pre-election matter.

Admitting the immunity of the governor, he, however, said that would violate the provision of section 34 (2) of the constitution.

Law, he said, was not an instrument of oppression nor of fraud and that once the action was in court before INEC conducted the election, it would be a fraudulent move to hide under immunity to cover the illegal act.

He stated that the court should not listen to ‘distractions’ as the order of the Supreme Court was very clear that the matter be heard on its merit, stating that the latest application on leave to furnish further evidence and the other one on immunity were mere irrelevancies capable of distracting the court from the course of justice.

According to him, if the evidence was important, the applicant should have raised it at the trial court and not when the whole world was waiting for the court to make a pronouncement.

Fagbemi said that the PDP failed to provide cogent and verifiable reasons at the trial court, contending that INEC should not be allowed to fish for reasons to justify its action and inaction.

Arguing his appeal, Fagbemi distinguished the case from that of Araraume, saying that in Araraume’s case, Charles Ugwu actually contested the primary election but in the appeal at the court, the second respondent (Omeihia) did not contest the primaries to bear the party‘s flag at the governorship election.

The Supreme Court had on Tuesday, July 10, berated the Court of Appeal for refusing to carry out its order asking it to hear and determine the appeal expeditiously.