By Anthony Uwadiegwu
Following the debacle about who the authentic governorship candidate of the ruling All Progressive Congress, APC ,is in Cross River state, the Federal High Court sitting in Calabar on Thursday set Oct. 24 for the judgment of the Governorship candidate.
Recall that Sen. John Owan-Enoh a Governorship aspirant of the party, in a suit FHC/CA/CS/95/2022 had approached the court to annul the result of the party’s May 27 Governorship primary that produced Sen. Bassey Otu alleging that he did not tender the required credentials to be cleared to run for primaries.
He prayed the court to declare him winner of the primaries having secured the second highest votes of 84 as against Otu, the third defendant in the matter and eventual winner with 811 votes.
After listening to the summations of the counsel to the plaintiff and counsels to the first, second and third defendant, the presiding Judge, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu declared Oct. 24 as the date for judgement, a date which was agreed upon by all parties.
Earlier, Counsel to the plaintiff had withdrawn the subpoena he served previously which was duly struck out by the judge after getting clarification for all parties.
However presenting his arguments, counsel to the plaintiff alleged that the third defendant, Otu, did not submit the minimum educational certificates required to be eligible to contest in the party’s Governorship primary.
“The report of the screening committee lends credence to the fact that when the third defendant came for the party screening, he did not come with Senior School Certificate but a testimonial contrary to the party’s guidelines.
“The screening committee report tells eloquently that the third defendant was not at any point fully cleared by it before he was allowed to contest in the party’s primary election.
“If the third defendant was not fully cleared by the screening committee why and how did the National Working Committee, (NWC) of the party clear him for the purpose of contesting in the primary against the party guideline?” He enquired.
Responding, Essien Andrew (SAN), Counsel to the first defendant, the All Progressive Congress (APC) said the clearance of an aspirant to participate in the party’s primary election was an internal affair of the party.
Andrew alleged that there was no provision in the electoral act on how parties should clear its aspirant adding that it was left for political parties to clear its aspirant how it deems fit.
“The first defendant has produced a report written by its National Organising Secretary, stating unequivocally that the third defendant has been cleared to participate in the primary election.
“The plaintiff’s case is built on the fact that the screening committee’s report says that the third defendant’s screening is inconclusive, following this you cannot say the third defendant was disqualified.
“We submit that the complaints of the plaintiff based on the screening committee’s report is misguided, also, it is not the business of the court to find out whether the third defendant presented academic qualifications,” he maintained.
President Buhari mourns Queen Elizabeth II
On his part, Mike Ozekhome, Counsel to the third defendant urged the judge to dismiss the case as it lacked merit and substance in favour of the third defendant and use its discretion to award proper compensation to the third defendant.
“For the record of this court, at no point was the third defendant ever disqualified, if a candidate is disqualified, a certificate of disqualification would be issued but no certificate of disqualification was issued.
“What the screening committee said was that his screening was inconclusive because the third defendant was yet to provide a First School Leaving Certificate and a Senior School Certificate,” he said.
He also alleged that the plaintiff in a letter had earlier withdrawn for the race for the benefit of the party and urged his supporters to support the third defendant adding that even later contesting in the party’s primary was an error.
