Want Appeal Court to upturn High Court's verdict
ABUJA — TWO members of the Peoples Democratic Party, Messrs Goodnews Agbi and Anthony Alabi yesterday approached the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja challenging the clean bill of health given by an Abuja high court to Governor James Onanefe Ibori of Delta state over allegation that he is an ex-convict.
The duo of Agbi and Alabi yesterday told the governor that he should stop celebrating his victory at the trial court as the legal battle over his eligibility for the exalted position he is occupying has just commenced.
They said his purported victory is not sealed and should be ready for another round of legal battle.
Their notice of appeal challenging the verdict of the trial court was filed exactly 10 days after judgment was delivered in the identification trial ordered by the Supreme Court February 6, this year.
In the 24-page notice of appeal lodged yesterday by the Chambers of Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) at the registry of the Abuja High Court, (Appeal Unit), they are asking the Court of Appeal to void, in its entirety, the November 8, 2004 verdict of the Abuja High Court because the judgment was entered “against the weight of evidence” before it (the court).
Inviting the appellate court to throw out the entire judgment and allow their appeal, they listed nine separate grounds why the court should move in their favour.
In the event the judgment is voided, they wanted the court to declare that the James Onanefe Ibori who was convicted as a sub-contractor to Spibat Nigeria Limited at Usman Dam near Bwari at the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on September 28, 1995 is the same James Onanefe Ibori who is presently serving as governor of Delta state and therefore ineligible to contest for gubernatorial election in Delta state.
It would be recalled that an Abuja High Court presided over by Justice Hussein Mukhtar had on November 8, 2004 dismissed, in its entirety, a suit by the duo of Agbi and Alabi alleging that Governor James Onanefe Ibori of Delta state is an ex-convict.
According to the High Court judge, the governor’s accusers failed woefully to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt that the governor was indeed the one convicted in CR-81-95 at an Upper Area Court, Bwari, Abuja, as claimed.
“This is simply because the credibility of the principal witness of the plaintiffs, Justice Awwal Yusuf which their case heavily depends, has been greatly challenged by the defendants in the case.
"Although the surname, the middle name and the first name of the convict on the record of proceedings in CR-81-95 are the same with that of Delta state governor, such coincidental circumstance may not be enough to conclude that Governor James Onanefe Ibori is the same person convicted in the charge.
“This is more so when memory of the principal witness of the plaintiffs, Justice Yusuf has been seriously faulted, even in events that recently happened.”
However, Chief Gani, in the notice of appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs listed nine grounds why the judgment must collapse.
Some of the grounds of the appeal are:
"That the learned trial judge misdirected himself in law when he said as follows: 'where as in this case, an issue of commission of criminal offences of negligent conduct and criminal breach of trust forms the factor directly responsible for the status and fate of Governor Ibori or not, the commission of such offences for which there was already a conviction comes directly into issue and the provision of section 138 (1) of the Evidence Act becomes operative.
According to Chief Gani, “the case is not about the trial of a person accused of the negligent conduct and criminal breach of trust whose guilt must be proved.
“It is the case of the identity of the person who was accused of negligent conduct and criminal breach of trust whose guilt was proved and he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of N1,000.00 or one year imprisonment on both counts on September 28, 1995. Therefore section 138 of the Evidence Act which enjoins proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt will not apply to this case.”
