APGA Crisis: Judge Threatens To Jail INEC Chairman, Oye over Contempt

Justice Mohammed Madugu of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting in Bwari, on Thursday, ordered the Chairman of the Indepen­dent National Electoral Com­mission (INEC), Prof. Yakubu Mahmood, and the former factional chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Chief Victor Oye, to purge themselves of contempt of court within 14 days or face the full wrath of the law.

Justice Madugu gave the order in a judgment on a com­mittal proceeding (Form 49) which was drawn from a mo­tion on notice, marked FCT/ HC/CV/4068/2023, filed against Chief Victor Oye and the INEC chairman by Otunba Camaru Lateef Ogidan, the National Vice Chairman, South-West Zone of APGA, and Alhaji Ra­biu Mustapha, the National Welfare Officer of APGA, two APGA National Working Com­mittee members who emerged at the APGA Owerri Conven­tion of May 31, 2019, under the leadership of the National Chairman of APGA, Chief Edozie Njoku.

The trial judge held that from the totality of affidavit ev­idence before the court, the duo were found to be in contempt of court, stressing that he had to grant them a 14-day grace to purge themselves of contempt of court “out of leniency”.

By the committal charge, the applicants had sought an order of court to commit the INEC chairman and Victor Oye to prison for disobeying the valid order of the court made on May 10, which had restrained Oye and APGA from conducting ward, local government area, state congresses and conven­tion.

The motion was filed on be­half of the APGA officials by Michael Ajara and Panam Ntui.

Justice Madugu had on May 10, 2023, ordered the INEC chair­man and Oye, parties in the suit “to maintain status quo ante bel­lum” pending the hearing of the notice of preliminary objection filed on May 9, 2023 by the 1st de­fendant/applicant (Oye).

“For the avoidance of doubt and for the purpose of clari­ty, parties herein whether by themselves, agents, privies, assigns, authorised represen­tatives or whosoever acting on their behalf are restrained from holding the planned congress­es, national convention or any other meetings or gatherings in whatever name called of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) pending the hearing of notice of preliminary objection filed on May 9, 2023 by the 1st defendant/applicant”, Justice Madugu ordered.

Despite the unambiguous words of the court, Oye went ahead and conducted the con­gresses under the supervision of the INEC later in May.

Delivering judgment, Justice Madugu held that having not ap­pealed the order made on May 10, the INEC chairman and Oye “were in contempt of court”.

“A court does not make an or­der in vain; a court order must be obeyed. Disobedience to a valid court order undermines the integrity and sanctity of the court.

“This insanity of flouting court order must stop, and it cannot continue. The disobedi­ence to the order made by this court on May 10, is undoubtedly an affront on the sanctity of the court”, Justice Madugu stated.

Consequently, Justice Mad­ugu ordered the 1st respondent (Oye) and 2nd respondent (INEC chairman) to purge themselves of contempt of court within 14 days or face the full wrath of the court.

The court held that Oye’s submission that APGA conduct­ed the congresses based on the May 12 order of the Anambra High Court, Otuocha, was not tenable.

Justice Madugu queried if the order of a High Court in Anambra can overrule that of an Abuja High Court, made on May 10, all being courts of coor­dinate jurisdictions.

The judge noted that Oye had other means to challenge the or­der but failed to do so.

“Placing reliance on the order of an Anambra High Court, made on May 12, does not absolve the respondents from the dire consequences of the committal charge, Justice Madugu held.

Earlier in the judgment, the court had dismissed a prelim­inary objection filed by Oye’s lawyer, Victor Agunzi.

See Also

Amytorix Company Limited Files Contempt Proceedings Against Lagos State Agencies Over Property Demolition

On the allegation of bias made against the Judge by Agunzi, the court warned the lawyer to be wary of utterances which he cannot defend.

“Allegation of bias or likeli­hood of bias is a serious issue that must be investigated.”

The court stated that the ap­plication should have been filed with an affidavit upon which the allegation of bias was made for it to be determined.

“There was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of bias except primarily a petition before the Chief Judge of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.”

The court cautioned Agunzi to refrain from making unsub­stantiated allegations.

Justice Madugu reminded Agunzi of his duty as a legal practitioner to uphold and ex­hibit professional conducts that will promote the integrity and sanctity of the court, and not acts capable of eroding public trust and confidence in the ju­diciary.

Reacting, Ajara said the court was trying to be lenient by giving the respondents 14 days to clear themselves of the contempt charge.

“The only way is for them to undo what they did and obey the order made on May 10, failure which will land them in jail.”