AWKA— THE Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu has fixed an inception date for judgement in the appeal filed by Mr. Emma Anosike, currently sitting in the Senate for Anambra North Senatorial District against Mrs.Joy Emodi. Emodi was given victory in the judgement of the first Anambra State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Awka on January 21,2004, where she challenged the declaration of Anosike through a press statement as the winner of the Senatorial seat. The court said the parties involved would be communicated on a date to be decided by the five Judges who heard the appeal.
The appeal was eventually heard last week. The matter is the only one of the three appeals from the three senatorial zones which suffered much delay which the court had always blamed on counsel.
At the end of the April 12,2003 National Assembly eletions, Emodi was returned by INEC, but the then Resident Electoral Commissioner, Alhaji Hassan Suleiman, through a press release, withdrew and cancelled her victory and through another press release announced Anosike, whom he had earlier declared a winner of the House of Representatives seat (Anambra East/West) in the election held the same day,also winner of the Senate seat.
Aggrieved by this, Emodi headed to the tribunal where she petitioned against INEC’s action. The tribunal in its January 21,2004 judgement confirmed Emodi’s victory and declared that she was the PDP candidate who contested the Anambra North Senatorial seat and was returned and declared the winner. However, not satisified with the judgement of the tribunal, Anosike filed an appeal before the Enugu Division of the court of Appeal. He alleged that the court erred in law by giving Emodi victory.
Adopting his briefs, Anosikes’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) noted that they formulated seven issues, among which were that the Awka panel refused their application to amend their brief while it (panel) allowed the petitioner to amend her own, that the five members of the tribunal did not sit consistently, though he accepted that they formed quorum on each sitting day, that the amended brief filed by the petitioner was not signed by the lead lawyer whose name was at the foot of the petition or the petitioner herself, that the tape recorder which contains the declaration of Anosike as a winner of the House of Representatives was allegedly produced by a fake witness and that the petitioner, Emodi was not returned and issued form EC8E by the constituency returning officer.
Adopting Emodi’s own brief, her lead counsel, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) countered the issues raised by the appellant. On the issue of jurisdiction, he argued that the court (tribunal) had the jurisdiction citing the cases of Abana versus Obi reported in 2004 10,NWLR part 881,page 319, and Enemuo versus Duru also reprted in 2004, 9NWLR part 887 at page 75, saying that the two cases relate to the same list of candidates which Emodi relied uponin her petition.
According to him, respondents in the cited cases contended that they went for the election , won and was issued with form EC8E. Ikpeazu said the issue was no longer about sponsorship but that their contention was that they contested the election, won and was issued with form EC8E.On the issue of not granting their application to amend their brief, Ikpeazu noted that the appellant’s application was to add new facts into their brief. He said paragraph 14 of the first schdule of electoral Act 2002 which they (appellant) cited did not make for the introduction of new facts in form of amendment.
On the five judges not sitting consistently throughout the trial, Emodi’s lawyer argued that it was not established that they did not sit consistently throughout the trial and that they formed quorum throughout and that the chairman sat throughout.
He also tackled the issue of INEC not issuing Emodi with form EC8E, saying that she was issued form EC8E by the Returning officer who admitted at the tribunal that he wrote everything in the form EC8E presented before the tribunal by Emodi except the name "Chief (Mrs) Joy Emodi", which he alleged was superimposed on PDP .
