Banana Peels On Soludo’s Path As Appeal Court Is To Hear Case By APGA Factional Chairman, Against The Process That Produced Him
The Oasis Reporters
July 13, 2021
As Nigeria’s former Central Bank governor, a man credited with revolutionary changes in the Nigerian banking circle that led to consolidation and growth gets going to stomp the campaign trail for governorship of his Anambra home State in the eastern part of country, he needs to look at the ground, watching out for slippery peels.
A factional chairman, out of four factions that bestride the All Progressives Grand Alliance, APGA, Dr. Mic Adams has headed to the Court of Appeal, alleging that there was an injunction that was not set aside, stopping any further processes towards the choice of any candidate for any election.
Their case, filed on 7th of July, at the Court of Appeal, is praying the Court to determine whether it was proper, and justifiable for the Oye led APGA( 1st Respondent) to be engaged in acts geared to steal a march, while Appeal is pending.
In a motion filed on the 7th day of July, Dr Adams is asking the court to determine the following:-
” I.) Whether in view of the pending Appeal in this suit, this Honourable court ought not to stay further proceedings in this matter pending the determination of the Appeal. “
Before looking at the merits of their case, The Oasis Reporters dug into the issues behind the crises that seem to bedevil the party that has governed Anambra in superlative fashion, starting with Mr. Peter Obi, the builder of a new Anambra.
APGA has four factions namely the Dr Victor Oye’s faction which appears to be mainstream. It was the faction that produced the current governor, Willie Obiano and the present gubernatorial candidate, Prof. Charles Soludo.
There’s also the Dr Mic Adams’ faction, Bar Jude Okeke’s faction and finally, Chief Edozie Njuko’s faction.
We spoke with an insider source in the sprawling city of Awka and he had this to say:
“APGA is a victim of it’s limited success. The players in the Victor Oye faction have reduced the party to an Anambra Igbo party. Yet it wants to be seen as a national party. That is the problem”.
An APGA sympathizer, Alex Ikenna in Asaba, Delta state told The Oasis Reporters that ” for APGA to be seen as a national party, they need to have a national spread with members of the BOT from all parts of the country, a way to qualify it’s registration. To screen candidates for instance, they would need a national spread of delegates.
Problem is, when the party succeeds as it does in only Anambra for instance, suddenly the Anambra Igbos see it as theirs alone. They hijack the party, sharing the benefits alone and leaving no crumbs for others. Self centeredness is it’s Achilles’s heel.
“Whereas when the party was being formed ab initio, founders were from all parts of the country. But with the single, albeit Anambra success story, it has suddenly become a sole Anambra party. It is not good for inclusive democracy.
However, all factions seem to agree that Charles Soludo is a viable candidate. Of course, amid an equally star studded team of gubernatorial candidates other parties like the PDP, APC etc are parading.
Charles Soludo would need to move behind the Victor Oye line and reach out to the other factions for a formidable front to be formed as the PDP and APC seem set, to give the stage a strong showing that would make the victory dance, a swinging one.
Here’s a continuation of the Mic Adams appeal, couched in legal brief for perusal:
” II.) If the ANSWER to the above question is in the POSITIVE, Whether in view of the pending Appeal, this Honourable court ought not to direct the PARTIES (the Appellants and the Respondents) to maintain status quo, pending the determination of the Appeal. “
” III.) If the ANSWER to the above question is also in the POSITIVE, whether having regard to the Appeal pending before this Honourable court, in which the Respondents acts, actions, and activities geared to steal a march on the Appellants, to wit: Publication of Timetable, Sale of expression of interest , and nomination forms, Screening of candidates, Ward delegates congresses, Primary election to nominate the Governorship candidate of 1st Respondent, purportedly held in Awka, Anambra state of Nigeria between 25th May and 25th June, 2021 is not illegal, unlawful, null and void ab initio, and a gross abuse of Court/Judicial Process”.
If the determination is answered in *POSITIVE*, Dr Adams is praying that the court should set aside all processes conducted in the build up to primary election, to wit: Expression of interest & Nomination forms sale, the screening, the ward delegates congress, and a nullification of the purported Primary election held in Awka to nomination the candidate of 1st Respondent in the forthcoming Governorship election:
1.) An Order for Stay of Further proceeding of the judgement/Order of Honourable Judge V.I Ofesi dated 23 day of April, 2020 by Court below, pending the hearing and determination of the Applicant/Appellants Appeal entered on 25/6/2020 as CA/AS/147/2020.
*2.) AND ORDER of this Honourable Court directing all parties in this suit to maintain status quo, while appeal is pending before this Honourable Court.*
3.)AN ORDER of this Honourable court setting aside all proceedings, acts, and actions perpetuated by the 1st Respondent, geared towards to steal a match, wit: screening, congresses, primaries, nominations, etc… while appeal is pending before this Honourable court.
Standing on the ground that:-
(a.) The Appellants/ Applicants have appealed against the judgment/order of Honourable Judge V. I. Ofesi dated 23 day of April, 2020, and the appeal is pending before this Honourable Court.
(b.) That the appeal was entered on 25/6/2020 as No: CA/AS/147/2020.
(c.) That the notice of appeal raises substantial and recondite issues bothering on Jurisdiction and Fundamental Rights, for Court of Appeal to determine.
(d.) That the Acts, Actions, and Activities of the Respondents, while the appeal is pending, are geared towards steal of a march, capable of rendering whatever decision this Honourable Court may reach to nugatory, if this appeal succeeds.
In a 25 paragraphs affidavit in support, Dr Adams held that:-
That after the judgement of court on the 4th July, 2019, by Hon. Justice V. I. Ofesi, which held as follows:
” (i.) This Court hereby declare as null and void any purported meeting, decisions therefrom of the 1st defendant, its organs, leaders, principal officers, servants, Agents and Privies howsoever designated, held or purportedly held on May 14th 2019 at the Governor’s Lodge, Awka.
(ii.) Order of this Court is made directing the defendant, its National Leaders, Principal Organs officers to strictly comply with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and her registered Constitution Exhibit ‘A’ in conduct of its affairs.
(iii.) It is further ordered that the Independent National Electoral Commission not to and shall not recognize or act on any decision or action of the 1st Defendant in respect of her purported emergency meeting of the National Executive Committee held on the 14th day of May 2019 at the Governor’s Lodge, Awka.” Copy of the Judgment order is hereto attached and marked as exhibit “A”.
That was subsequently set aside, over some frivolous complexities and ambiguous circumstances, on the 23rd day of April 2020.
Copy of the ruling is hereto attached and marked as exhibit ” B”
That Appellants/ Applicants being dissatisfied, Appealed the ruling on the 27th of April 2020. Copy of the Notice of Appeal is hereto attached and marked as exhibit “C”
That the Appeal was entered on 25/6/2020 as No. CA/AS/147/2020 in this Honourable Court. Copy of Record of court herein attached and marked as Exhibit “D”.
That the pending appeal before this Honourable court, is an interlocutory appeal bothering on fundamental rights, and Jurisdictional competence of the court below to set aside its own judgement delivered on 23 day of April.
That the interlocutory appeal pending before this Honourable court, terminates the case at the lower court, if it succeeds, or sends back to retrial, if it fails.
That the earlier judgement order of 23rd April 2019, declared null and void the 1st Respondent NEC meeting held on the 14th of May, 2019.
That the NEC meeting of 14th May 2019 was scheduled, in accordance with 2nd Respondent directives, and in pursuant of 1st Respondent Constitution (Article 19) 2014, as amended, to formulate the guidelines and schedule of activities for APGA(1st Respondent) elective congresses/National Convention 2019, to usher in new set of national leadership of the party.( See page 71 of Record of court, paragraphs 1– 4.)
That the unconstitutional conduct, and decisions of the NEC meeting of 14th May, occasioned the grievances of a number of BoT, ( including the Appellants) to approach the court for, to redress the violation of their fundamental rights.
That the fundamental rights violation of BoTs where as follows:
(a.) Dissolution of BoT by the 1st Respondent/Defendant on the 15/05/2019, contrary to Article 14(12) of APGA(1st Respondent) constitutional, 2014, as amended.
(b.) Disenfranchisement of BoT in attending the NEC meeting, by not extending formal invitation to them, and locking them out of the meeting venue, by employing the use of Identity card, threats, intimidations, and trained thugs & militias. See Records of court, pages 4 — 6 , and paragraphs 1 — 20.)
That prior to the judgement order of 4/7/2019, the court below had earlier granted an interim order of injunction, restraining Respondents(Defendants) from acting or further acting on any decision of the 1st Respondent (1st Defendant) emanating from the purported meeting of 14th May, at governor’s lodge, Awka.:
” Finally, an interim order of injunction is hereby made restraining the Defendants from acting or further acting on any decision of the 1st Defendant emanating from the purported emergency meeting of its (NEC) National Executive council held on the 14/5/2019 at the Governor’s Lodge, Awka which meeting was convened and held in violent violation of the constitution of the party and CFRN 1999 as amend and in breach of the Applicants Fundamental Rights pending the hearing and determination of motion on Notice filled on 22/5/2019.
For the avoidance of any doubt, this order lapse after 7 days of service of same on the Defendants. Return date is 3/7/2019 ….”
( See pages 98 — 100, of Record of court, paragraph 4.)
That the Restraining order of injunction was served to the Respondents ( Defendants) on the 30/5/2019.
( See Records of court, page 101.)
That the proposed convention was not done by law.
That the interim injunction lapsed on 6/6/2019, the same day that the tenure of the 1st Defendant ended ( see Record of court, page 67.)
That, consequently to this aforementioned above, the tenure of leadership of 1st Respondent ( 1st Defendant) expired on 6/6/2019( see Record of court, page 37 — 38).
That though an unlawfully gathering, purportedly called convention was carried out, by the 1st Respondent( 1st Defendant), in deviant to the Restraining Injunction, in anticipation of a victory to the suit in the lower court.
That the unlawful and purported convention can only be validated if the pending appeal fails. But where the pending appeal in this Honourable court succeeds, it is the end of the matter in the court below, and the end of their long awaited anticipation to validate their unlawful convention.
That while the appeal ( CA/AS/147/2020) is pending before this Honourable Court, the Respondents have been engaged in acts, actions, and activities to steal a march on the Appellants/Applicants, and may render whatever this Honourable Court may ultimately decide nugatory if in favour of the Appellants/Applicants.
That these are as follows:
a.) That the 1st Respondent, while appeal is pending, proceeded to publish timetable for Anambra Governorship Election processes, on the 20th of April 2021. Copy of the Published Timetable is hereto attached and marked as exhibit “F”.
b.) That the published timetable contains all the processes as contained in the Electoral Act, 2010/ INEC Guidelines for Governorship Elections: Expression of Interest, Purchase of Nomination Form, Screening of Candidates, Appeal of Candidates, Ward delegate congress/election, and the Primary election to choose a candidate and flag bearer to the Party.
c.) That between 25th May to 8th June 2021, the 1st Respondent proceeded with the sale of Expression of interest forms and Nomination Forms, totally in breach of a pending appeal.
d.) That on the 10th of June, 2021, the 1st Respondent proceeded with the screening of the purported candidates who procured form at the cost of 22 million naira. Copies of the Screening Result/Report is hereto attached and marked as exhibit ” G”.
e.) That on the 16th of June 2021, the 1st Respondent, proceeded with the Resolution of Appeals resulting from the screening. Copies of Resolution is hereto attached and marked as exhibit “H”.
f.) That on the same 16th June 2021, the 1st Respondent proceeded with the ward delegates congresses/election. Copies of the ward delegates congresses/ election is hereto attached and marked as exhibit “I”.
g.) That same of the 16th June 2021, the 1st Respondent forwarded the purported Results of the ward delegates congresses/election to the 2nd Respondent, with a cover-up letter. Copy of the letter is hereto attached and marked as exhibit “J”.
h.) That on the 18th June 2021, the 2nd Respondent replied the 1st Respondent in a corporate correspondence. Copies of the letter is hereto attached and marked as exhibit “K”.
i.) That on the 23rd June 2021, the 1st Respondent proceeded with the Primary Election, and purportedly declared a winner and flag bearer for the Party. Copies of pictures of the purported primary election is hereto attached and marked as exhibit “L”.
That in the eventual resolution of the pending interlocutory appeal, if successful, the case dies, but if it fails, the Appellants suffers a great lose, the validation of the purported convention means upholding the dissolution of the BoT, and the eventual expulsion of the Appellants from the party.
And that for the 1st Respondent, it stands to lose nothing. If the pending appeal tilt to their favour, the matter proceeds for retrial in the lower court, but if it fails to tilt to their favour, The only remaining organ of the party( Board of Trustee, BoT) is empowered by Article 12(14)(e)(f), to activate Article 19(6), of APGA constitution 2014, as amended, to appoint a National Caretaker Committee to oversee the activities of the party, immediately. The caretaker Committee whose tenure is 120 days, is empowered to conduct a lawfully, and constitutionally accepted National convention to usher in New Executive committee members to steer the affairs of the party for the next four years.( See pages 28 & 38)
In a well articulated written address, Dr Adams, held as follows:-
” ……..this is an Application, pursuant to O.4 r.11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, seeking for Order of stay of further proceedings, and Order to set aside acts, actions, and activities perpetuated by the Respondents( Defendants) geared to steal a march on the Appellants.
2.0. FACTS OF THE CASE
2.01. An interlocutory Appeal, CA/AS/147/2020, is pending before this Honourable court, which hearing has been adjourned to 2nd of November 2021. The Appeal is against that of the High Court of Justice of Delta state, sitting at Kwale, per V. I Ofesi, J. delivered on the 23 day of April, 2020. In the decision, His Lordship granted the application of 1st Respondent( then 1st Defendant/Applicant, and accordingly set aside the judgment earlier entered by court in favour of the Appellants on the 4th July, 2019( pages 131 — 132 of the record)
2.02. That the pending Interlocutory Appeal bothers on *fundamental rights, and the Jurisdictional competence* of the court below to set aside its own judgement on 23/4/2020.
2.03. While Appeal is pending before this Honourable court, the Respondents were engaged in acts, actions, and activities to steal a march on the Appellants, and render whatever this Honourable court may ultimately decide nugatory if it is in favour of the Appellants.
2.04. This application is aimed at preserving the rest. See *Shodeinde V. The Trustee of Ahmadiyya movemen- in- Islam ( 1980) 1 – 2 SC 163*
3.0. ISSUES OF DETERMINATION
3.01. The issues that call for determination is whether the questions posed in the motion paper, question 1 & 2 answered in positive, would question 3 not also be in the positive?
Would Reliefs I, II & III not flow as consequential Reliefs?
3.02. Permit us to reproduce the 3 question in determination, for clarity sake:
” I.) Whether in view of the pending Appeal in this suit, this Honourable court ought not to stay further proceedings in this matter pending the determination of the Appeal. “
” II.) If the ANSWER to the above question is in the POSITIVE, Whether in view of the pending Appeal, this Honourable court ought not to direct the PARTIES (the Appellants and the Respondents) to maintain status quo, pending the determination of the Appeal. “
” III.) If the ANSWER to the above question is also in the POSITIVE, whether having regard to the Appeal pending before this Honourable court, in which the Respondents acts, actions, and activities geared to steal a march on the Appellants, to wit: Publication of Timetable, Sale of expression of interest , and nomination forms, Screening of candidates, Ward delegates congresses, Primary election to nominate the Governorship candidate of 1st Respondent, purportedly held in Awka, Anambra state of Nigeria between 25th May and 25th June, 2021 is not illegal, unlawful, null and void ab initio, and a gross abuse of Court/Judicial Process”
4.0. ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUES.
4.01. Permit us to argue all issues together since they flow into each other.
4.02. ISSUE I
” I.) Whether in view of the pending Appeal in this suit, this Honourable court ought not to stay further proceedings in this matter pending the determination of the Appeal. “
4.03. In treating this issue, our first point of reference, with respect, shall be Order 4, Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, which provide as follows:
” After an appeal has been entered and until it has finally disposed of the Court shall be seized of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties thereto, except as may be otherwise provided in these Rules, every application therein shall be made to the court and not to the court below…
4.04. The provision of this rule is clear and unambiguous. In reliance of the 0.4 r.11, this application is aimed at the determination of the 3(three) questions about, to preserve the res of this case.
4.05. This application is occasioned by the acts, actions, and activities of the Respondents to steal a march on the Appellants and render whatever this Honourable court may ultimately decide nugatory if in favour of the Appellants, or put in another way, preempting the court in the exercise of it’s constitutional functions as donated by Section 6(6)(b) of 1999 CFRN as amended.
4.06. At this juncture it will be proper to lay the foundation of the proper criteria for stay of further proceedings.
4.07. Stay of further proceedings as Defined by Black’s Law dictionary, is an Order to suspend all or part of a judicial proceedings or a judgement resulting from that proceedings.
4.08. It is further defined in its ordinary grammatical meaning as, A stay of Proceedings in a ruling by the Court in civil and Criminal procedures, halting further legal process in a trial or other legal proceedings.
4.09. It is the primary duties of all Courts ( both trial and appellate to preserve the res (subject matter of litigation) so that at the end of the exercise whatever decision is reached is not rendered nugatory. See Kigo V. Holman (1980) 5-7 SC 60
4.10. This Honourable Court has the power to stay proceedings pending Appeal in order that the res will be preserved. The power which is discretionary, must be exercised judicially and also judiciously. See Shodeinde V. The Trustees of Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam 1980 1-2Sc 163 and Kigo (Nigeria) Ltd V. Holman Bros (Nigeria) Ltd (1980) 5-7 SC 60.)
4.11 In the exercise of its discretion to grant or refuse an Application for Stay of proceedings pending the determination of an Appeal, the Court is to be guided by the following:
I.) There must be a pending Appeal; A stay of Proceedings can be granted only if there is a pending Appeal, which is valid in law.
II.) There must be an arguable appeal.
III.) Where the Appeal will dispose off the proceedings; where the interlocutory Appeal following an Application for Stay of proceedings where finally disposed of the case or put an end to the proceedings in the lower Court, Stay of proceedings will be granted.
IV.) Where the rest will not be preserved.
V.) Where greater hardship will be caused; where it will render the Order of the Appellate Court; A stay of Proceedings will be granted.
VI.) And also where an issue of jurisdiction is raised by an Appellant in a ground of Appeal in a notice of Appeal, it is therefore definitely the law, that a stay of Proceedings is inevitable. See NIZO (NIG) LTD & ANOR V. HAJIYA BINTA ALIYU (2005) LPELR 7533 (CA) PP 12-13 PARAS G-A
4.13. Against the above backdrop in point of law, as captured in paragraphs 4.11 & 4.12, we shall humbly proceed to examine if this application passed the criteria mentioned above.
4.14. In determining paragraph 4.11(I) above. An Appeal is said to have entered when the record of appeal is transmitted to Court of Appeal or Supreme Court as the case may be.
See *Nigerian Navy & Ors V. Navy Captain D. O. Labinjo (2012) NSCQR 50 @ PG 255.
Also see Atisco Pet Nig. Ltd V. UBN Plc (2009) 3 NWLR (pt. 1127) 22
Relying on paragraphs 6 & 7 of the affidavit evidence of this motion, ground (b) of this application, the Record of Appeal, before this Honourable court, transmitted to this Honourable court on the 25/6/2020, and an additional Record of Appeal, transmitted to this Honourable Court on 21/7/2020, we submit that the Appellant herein satisfied this criteria for grant of stay.
4.15. In determining 4.11(II) above, we herein attach a copy of the filed Appellants’ Brief of Argument, filed on 15/10/2020. Herein Marked as Exhibit “M”.
4.16. Relying on Exhibit “M”, before this Honourable court, we submit that the Appellant herein satisfied the criteria 4.11(II) above, for a grant of stay.
4.17. In determining 4.11(III) above, we rely on paragraphs 4 — 19 of the affidavit evidence deposed to, in this Application. For emphasis, if the pending interlocutory appeal before this Honourable court succeed, it disposes off the case at the lower court, and restores the earlier judgment that nullifies the meeting of 14th May 2019, consequently purported convention becomes on lawful. And the purported leadership, waiting to validate their unlawful convention steps down, as their 4 years tenure having expired, and having been restrained by a restraining Injunction whose 7 days life span expired the same day the 1st Respondent’s tenure expired. If the interlocutory appeal fails, the matter is sent back to the lower court for retrial. See Owena Bank ( Nig.)Plc V. Olatunji (1999) 13 NWLR (PT 634) PG 218@ 230 Paras B — C, where Onnoghen, JCA as he then was, stated:
*”That where an interlocutory order does not finally dispose of a case, it would be wrong to stay proceedings because of an appeal lodged against it by an aggrieved party. However, a court will order a stay of proceedings where an interlocutory appeal, if successful, disposes of the entire proceedings….”*
We submit that the Appellants herein satisfied criteria of 4.11(III) above, for a grant of a stay.
4.18. In determining 4.11(IV) above, we rely on paragraphs 21(a — i) of the Affidavit evidence of this application, and Exhibits ( F — L) marked and attached in this application. Exhibits F — L, is a prima facie evidence of the acts, actions, and activities engaged by the Respondents, geared towards stealing a march against the Appellants, capable of rendering whatever this Honourable court may ultimately decide nugatory, if in favour of the Appellants. We submit that the Appellants herein satisfied criteria of 4.11(IV) above, for the a grant of stay.
4.19. In determining 4.11(V) above, the determinant question is ” balance of convenience”. Who will stand to lose more if the status quo is not maintained?
Considering the totality of the affidavit evidence in this application, we submit that the balance of convenience leans in favour of granting this application. We rely most particularly on paragraphs 22 & 23 of the affidavit evidence of this application, if the Appellant loses in the pending appeal, no amount of damage can compensate it. See “Obeya Memorial Specialist Hospital( Ayi-Onyema Family) Ltd V. Attorney General of the Federation & Anors (1987) SC (Part 1) 52 and Kigo V. Holman ( supra)
4.20. We submit that the Applicants herein satisfied criteria 4.11(V),above, for the grant of a stay.
4.21.In determining 4.(VI) above, we rely on the grand of this application, the record of appeal before this Honourable court ( pages 135 — 137 of the record), and paragraphs 6 & 7 of the affidavit evidence, and Exhibits “C” & ” D”.
We also rely on the case of *Nizo (Nig.) Ltd & Anor V. Hajia Binta Aliyu (2005) LPELR 7533 (CA) PP 12 — 13 Paras G — A
Where it was held as thus:
“It is therefore definitely law, that where an issue of jurisdiction is raised by an applicant in a ground of appeal contained in a notice of appeal, the applicant is taken to have satisfied special or exceptional circumstances, to justify granting him relief of stay of further proceedings pending the determination of an appeal”
4.22. We therefore submit that this criteria has been satisfied by the Appellant, as ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal raised a jurisdictional issue of competence of the trial judge setting aside it’s own judgment.
4.23. In conclusion, we submit and urge the court to stay proceedings in view of the entry of appeal in this Honourable court, to preserve the res. And also urge your Lordships to answer the question 1 in affirmative, and resolve same in the Appellants favour.
4.24. ” II.) If the ANSWER to the above question is in the POSITIVE, Whether in view of the pending Appeal, this Honourable court ought not to direct the PARTIES (the Appellants and the Respondents) to maintain status quo, pending the determination of the Appeal. “*
4.25. The primary duty of all courts( both trial and appellate) is to preserve the res( subject matter of the litigation), so that, at the end of the exercise, whatever decision is reached is not rendered nugatory, see *Kigo V. Holman (1980) 5 — 7 SC 60.*
4.26. The affidavit evidence in this application reveals that there substantial issues to be considered by this Honourable court, see ” Kufeji V. Kogbe (1961) 1 ALL NLR 113.
To determine the interlocutory pending appeal, it is mandatory that parties should maintain status quo, as each party has a right to have his dispute determined on merit and court should do everything to favour the fair trials of the questions before them. See Ojikutu V. Odeh 14 WACA 640.
4.27. On this backdrop, conclusively, we respectfully, urge the Lordships to direct all parties involved in the pending interlocutory appeal to maintain Status Quo pending the determination of the appeal. We hereby submit that the Lordships should resolve this in favour of the Appellant.
4.28. ” III.) If the ANSWER to the above question is also in the POSITIVE, whether having regard to the Appeal pending before this Honourable court, in which the Respondents acts, actions, and activities geared to steal a march on the Appellants, to wit: Publication of Timetable, Sale of expression of interest , and nomination forms, Screening of candidates, Ward delegates congresses, Primary election to nominate the Governorship candidate of 1st Respondent, purportedly held in Awka, Anambra state of Nigeria between 25th May and 25th June, 2021 is not illegal, unlawful, null and void ab initio, and a gross abuse of Court/Judicial Process”*
4.29. This issue is interwoven with the question 1. We submit the totality of the gross act, actions, and activities is a gross infraction of Judicial processes. The prima facie as capture in paragraphs 21(a — i) of the affidavit evidence, and the Exhibits attached and marked ( A — L), while an interlocutory appeal is pending in this Honourable court.
4.30 The facts involved in this application have been sufficiently stated in the exhaustive interwoven argument, hence requiring no further recapitulation. Simply put this application is occasioned as a result of the Respondents engaging in act, actions, and activities geared to steal a march against the Appellant, to render whatever this Honourable court may ultimately decide nugatory, if in favour of the Appellants. Or simply put in another way preempting the Court in the exercise of its constitutional functions as donated by section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 CFRN, as amended.
4.31. We submit that considering the weight of the affidavit evidence, the pending interlocutory appeal bothering on Jurisdictional competence of the court below, the balance of convenience which leans in favour of the Appellants, and deliberate acts, actions, and activities gear to un-preserve the res, it become inevitable to declare these acts, actions, and activities null and void ab initio.
We urge my Lordships to so rule, and answer this question in the affirmative, and resolve the same in favour of the Appellants…”
In a swift critical analysis, without prejudicing the Court of Appeal, and in considering *Akilu V. Gani Fawehinmi (No.2)(1989) 4SC (Part 1)63; (1989) 2 NWLR (Part 102) 122 at 65. And United Spinners Nig. Ltd V. Chartered Bank Ltd (SC 101/1996) [2001]10, delivered 13 July 2001, by Muhammadu Lawal Uwais ( Fmr CJN), Abubaker Bashir Wali, Idris Legbo Kutigi ( Fmr CJN), Sylvester Umaru Onu, & Umaru Atu Kalgo, JJSC, as they then was.
APGA ( All Progressives Grand Alliance), should be worried, or have cause to worry, as this perilous motion, is a time bomb, and a great peril, capable of sending APGA to oblivion in the close-up to Anambra Governorship race, and cut off the aspiration of Prof Soludo to actualize his longtime dream to occupy Agu Awka. It is also an open wound that will attract political hawks and lions to take their pound of flesh on APGA, and Soludo in particular. And at the juncture it is, it can get to the Supreme Court.
