have bn waiting for this for a long tym now the controversial judgement was only becos Gov okezie's tax clearance was question (1)his tax was signed on on Saturday (2)his tax clearance paper did not tally with his tax certificate (3) his tax receipt serial numbers was complicated 2011 numbers came from the back of the receipt and 2013 numbers started from the front page.with your common sense who is faulty.(2)sheriff was voted by the PDP to rule for four year constitutionally and wike and markafi asked him to resign just like that without any allegation just because he was not dancing to there tone (3) those house of rep members were not lawfully nominated and the rightful ones came to see for a redress which okon did the proper thing.see PDP is an evil party which only want the biggest bidders and puppets when you resist there idea that will be your doom.during the 2015 election build up in Abia state PDP plan to zone it to Abia south but they still went to Abia north to collect money for people promising to zone it back to them there during the primary election they automatically announced the Gov puppet the winner after collecting money from many ppl and even betraying aspirants from that same constituency by not making the floor open for all to contest.so tell me if you will be happy supposing you are a victim let for me I will make my evidence available to the court f justice to come and when it come's ppl will curse the judge tnx

Dr. Uchechukwu Sampson Ogah, who was declared winner of the Abia State governorship election by the Federal High Court in June, has filed two separate appeals before the Supreme Court, challenging the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which refused to recognize him as winner of the poll.
Mr. Ogah is appealing against the July 18 judgement of the appeal court on 42 grounds.
Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja division had, on June 27, nullified the April 11, 2015 election of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu Ikpeazu for submitting false information in his tax clearance certificate to the Peoples Democratic Party during the governorship primary in the state
The court ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to issue certificate of return to Mr. Ogah, who emerged runner-up to Mr. Ikpeazu in the primary.
However, on July 18, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal set aside the nullification of the governor’s election, describing the judgement of the lower court as a miscarriage of justice. 
In the first motion with 24 grounds of appeal which he filed through his counsel, Alex Iziyon, at the Supreme Court, Mr. Ogah is seeking the annulment of the judgement of the appeal court. He is also asking that he be declared winner of the governorship election.
The second motion containing 18 grounds of appeal wants the nullification of the decision of the appeal court because it was given in error.
The defendants in the appeal, with reference numbers CA/A/390/2016 and FHC/ABJ/CS/71/2016, apart from the governor, are the PDP, INEC and one Friday Nwosu.
In the fresh appeal, Mr. Iziyon, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, argued that based on section 31 of the Electoral Act, “Where documents submitted to INEC are found to be false, no oral document will be admitted to alter or clarify the initial documents.” 
He said the same court had in a previous judgement, in the case between Christian Adabah Abah and Anor versus Hon. Hassan Anthony Saleh and Anor, decided that documents submitted to INEC in form 001 were documentary in nature and that the court should have “stayed with its previous decision and not create conflicting decision on same issues of similar facts”.
He also argued that the appeal court erred in its decision and that the lower court should have struck out the case due to what he called faulty originating summons.
“By the Supreme Court decision in Emeh vs. Osuagwu, the proper order to have been made should have been an order returning the case to the trial court for hearing on the disputed facts,” Mr. Iziyon said.
He further argued that the court was wrong in deciding that the burden of proof lied with his appellant (Mr. Ogah).
He said, “What the appellant is supposed to prove as his initial burden is to present documents or information submitted by the 1st respondent (Ikpeazu) in form 001 to INEC which contain false information.
“Once that has been done as was done by the appellant in his case, the burden shifts to the 1st and 2nd respondents to show that the documents or information are genuine.
“The 1st and 2nd respondent in discharging their burden cannot, modify alter the document or information with a later document showing mistake or inadvertence which were not originally submitted to INEC.”
Mr. Izinyon further said the appeal court was wrong in submitting that Mr. Abang spoke from both sides of his mouth when he (Abang) agreed with the allegation that the document was false. 
He however said the case in question was different from making a false statement under the Criminal and Penal code.
“Section 31 of the Electoral Act is set encompassing on what constitute false information, not forgery,” he said
Mr. Izinyon said the panel of five judges erred in law when it submitted that the lower court imported the term: “As at when due” to the PDP guidelines.
“The term as at when due was used by the trial judge on the 7th false information,” he said.
He therefore prayed the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirm the June 27 decision of the Federal High Court.
The date of hearing is yet to be fixed by the Supreme Court.
 Source
©premium times

Dr. Sampson Ogah has rejected the Court of Appeal judgment which set aside the judgment of a Federal High Court that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue him with a certificate of return as the governor of Abia State. In a notice of appeal filed by his lawyer, Dr. Alex Izinyon, SAN, Ogah raised seven grounds of appeal upon which he relied to ask the apex court to affirm the decision of the trial court. Among others, he said the Court of Appeal judgment was against the weight of evidence.
Apart from the appeal to the Supreme Court, he asked the Court of Appeal to issue an order of injunction restraining the Abia State Governor, Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu from applying for any certificate of return from INEC pending the hearing and determination of the appeal at the apex court.
Ogah also asked the Appeal Court for an order of injunction restraining INEC from issuing any certificate of return to Ikpeazu pending the determination of the appeal.
He also asked the court to issue an injunction restraining INEC from retrieving or revoking or cancelling the certificate of return issued to him on June 27, 2016 in relation to the office of the Governor of Abia State pending the hearing of his appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ogah said the justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that he was wrong to have commenced the suit by way of originating summons.

According to him, his case bordered on simple interpretation of the Peoples’ Democratic Party’s constitution, and the guideline and provisions of the Electoral Act.
He also faulted the Appeal Court justices for holding that the trial judge imported the phrase, ‘as at when due’ into the 2014 PDP Guidelines and that it was immaterial that facts of the documents were admitted when the said documents was not presented before the court.
He explained that his case was for the interpretation of Section 14(a) of the PDP Guidelines, 2014 and sections 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010.
“The said provisions in Paragraph 14(a) of the said PDP Guidelines were reproduced, easing the requirement of tax by Ikpeazu as an aspirant for gubernatorial primaries of PDP and the consequent election.”
He also faulted the judgment of the Court of Appeal where the justices held that the false information envisaged under section 31(2) of the Electoral Act must not go outside the constitutional provision of sections 177 and 182 of the constitution.
He argued that the Court of Appeal failed to understand the difference between pre-election qualification/ disqualification. He stated that the provision of Section 31 of the Electoral Act and challenge on grounds of false information was a pre-election matter.
“Failure of the Court of Appeal to appreciate this manifest dichotomy led to a miscarriage of justice,” he added
The Appeal Court had, in a unanimous judgment, set aside the judgment of Justice Okon Abang which removed Ikpeazu from office.
Five justices namely Ibrahim Shatta Bdliya, Philomena Buwa Ekpe, Morenikeji Ogunwumiju, Abubakar Datti Yahaya, and Saidu Tanko Huseni had unanimously set aside the judgment.
They held that the trial judge went beyond his powers as a judge, became biased and also turned the law upside down. The court held that the matter was hostile, controversial and contentious and should not have been commenced by originating summons. In the views of the justices, the proper mode of commencement of the case should have been writ of summons.
The court held that Justice Abang erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the governor when he refused to give him a fair hearing. The court further held that the judge pre-judged the matter when he touched on the substantive issues at the preliminary stage without hearing the appellant.
Justice Ogunwumiju who delivered the lead judgment in one of the appeals, held that Justice Abang “committed a grave violence against one of the pillars of justice” relating to fair hearing.
She further held that Justice Abang raped democracy in his order that INEC should issue a certificate of return to Ogah when there was no evidence of forgery or criminality against the appellant.
According to the court, the judgment of Justice Abang was grossly erroneous because it was based on inadequacy of tax receipt that cannot be visited on the appellant (Ikpeazu).
Justice Ogunwumiju also held that the trial judge turned the head of the law upside down in his conclusion that it was the appellant that should bear the burden of proof of an allegation made by Samson Ogar. The court said Justice Abang placed the law on its head when it directed INEC to issue fresh Certificate of Return to Mr. Sampson Ogah. While upholding the appeal, the court awarded N100,000 cost against Ogah.

Earlier, the court had held that Justice Okon Abang was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction on a motion for stay of execution of his earlier judgments delivered on June 27 even after the appeals against the judgments had been entered.
Justice Philomina Ekpe, who read the lead judgment, held that what Justice Abang ought to have done in line with time-honoured doctrine of “stari decisis” was to have transferred the motion to the Court of Appeal for determination.
The appellate court ruled in favour of the appellant Ikpeazu on his appeal challenging Abang’s decision to hear the application for a stay of execution of his judgment when he was duly informed that the appeals had been entered.
Justice Ekpe in her lead judgment held: “The lower court (Justice Abang) has made a complete summersault of the entire suit. Once an appeal is entered into, there is nothing left for the trial court to adjudicate upon. All the trial court was supposed to do was to transmit the record of proceedings to the appellate court. But it deliberately chose to do otherwise. This is against Order 4 Rules 10 and 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. The lower court acted ultra vires.”

 

Justice Abang had insisted that he had jurisdiction to hear a motion for stay of execution of his earlier judgments delivered on June 27 even after the appeals against the judgments had been entered at the Appeal Court.

 

In her contributing judgment, Justice Ogunwumiju who presided at the hearing of the appeal also held that Justice Abang “deliberately stood the law on its head”‎ when he erroneously assumed jurisdiction to hear the motion and adjourned it till a later date.

 

She further held that Justice Abang lacked jurisdictions to interpret the provisions of the Court of Appeal being the rules of a superior court. Judgment is still ongoing in the main appeal challenging Justice Abang’s Judgment which removed the governor from office.

 

 

©thisdaylive

Dr. Sampson Ogah has rejected the Court of Appeal judgment which set aside the judgment of a Federal High Court that ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue him with a certificate of return as the governor of Abia State. In a notice of appeal filed by his lawyer, Dr. Alex Izinyon, SAN, Ogah raised seven grounds of appeal upon which he relied to ask the apex court to affirm the decision of the trial court. Among others, he said the Court of Appeal judgment was against the weight of evidence.
Apart from the appeal to the Supreme Court, he asked the Court of Appeal to issue an order of injunction restraining the Abia State Governor, Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu from applying for any certificate of return from INEC pending the hearing and determination of the appeal at the apex court.
Ogah also asked the Appeal Court for an order of injunction restraining INEC from issuing any certificate of return to Ikpeazu pending the determination of the appeal.
He also asked the court to issue an injunction restraining INEC from retrieving or revoking or cancelling the certificate of return issued to him on June 27, 2016 in relation to the office of the Governor of Abia State pending the hearing of his appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ogah said the justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that he was wrong to have commenced the suit by way of originating summons.

According to him, his case bordered on simple interpretation of the Peoples’ Democratic Party’s constitution, and the guideline and provisions of the Electoral Act.

 

He also faulted the Appeal Court justices for holding that the trial judge imported the phrase, ‘as at when due’ into the 2014 PDP Guidelines and that it was immaterial that facts of the documents were admitted when the said documents was not presented before the court.

He explained that his case was for the interpretation of Section 14(a) of the PDP Guidelines, 2014 and sections 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010.

 

“The said provisions in Paragraph 14(a) of the said PDP Guidelines were reproduced, easing the requirement of tax by Ikpeazu as an aspirant for gubernatorial primaries of PDP and the consequent election.”

He also faulted the judgment of the Court of Appeal where the justices held that the false information envisaged under section 31(2) of the Electoral Act must not go outside the constitutional provision of sections 177 and 182 of the constitution.

 

He argued that the Court of Appeal failed to understand the difference between pre-election qualification/ disqualification. He stated that the provision of Section 31 of the Electoral Act and challenge on grounds of false information was a pre-election matter.

“Failure of the Court of Appeal to appreciate this manifest dichotomy led to a miscarriage of justice,” he added.

 

The Appeal Court had, in a unanimous judgment, set aside the judgment of Justice Okon Abang which removed Ikpeazu from office.

Five justices namely Ibrahim Shatta Bdliya, Philomena Buwa Ekpe, Morenikeji Ogunwumiju, Abubakar Datti Yahaya, and Saidu Tanko Huseni had unanimously set aside the judgment.

 

They held that the trial judge went beyond his powers as a judge, became biased and also turned the law upside down. The court held that the matter was hostile, controversial and contentious and should not have been commenced by originating summons. In the views of the justices, the proper mode of commencement of the case should have been writ of summons.

 

The court held that Justice Abang erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the governor when he refused to give him a fair hearing. The court further held that the judge pre-judged the matter when he touched on the substantive issues at the preliminary stage without hearing the appellant.

Justice Ogunwumiju who delivered the lead judgment in one of the appeals, held that Justice Abang “committed a grave violence against one of the pillars of justice” relating to fair hearing.

 

She further held that Justice Abang raped democracy in his order that INEC should issue a certificate of return to Ogah when there was no evidence of forgery or criminality against the appellant.

According to the court, the judgment of Justice Abang was grossly erroneous because it was based on inadequacy of tax receipt that cannot be visited on the appellant (Ikpeazu).

 

Justice Ogunwumiju also held that the trial judge turned the head of the law upside down in his conclusion that it was the appellant that should bear the burden of proof of an allegation made by Samson Ogar. The court said Justice Abang placed the law on its head when it directed INEC to issue fresh Certificate of Return to Mr. Sampson Ogah. While upholding the appeal, the court awarded N100,000 cost against Ogah.

Earlier, the court had held that Justice Okon Abang was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction on a motion for stay of execution of his earlier judgments delivered on June 27 even after the appeals against the judgments had been entered.

 

Justice Philomina Ekpe, who read the lead judgment, held that what Justice Abang ought to have done in line with time-honoured doctrine of “stari decisis” was to have transferred the motion to the Court of Appeal for determination.

 

The appellate court ruled in favour of the appellant Ikpeazu on his appeal challenging Abang’s decision to hear the application for a stay of execution of his judgment when he was duly informed that the appeals had been entered.

 

Justice Ekpe in her lead judgment held: “The lower court (Justice Abang) has made a complete summersault of the entire suit. Once an appeal is entered into, there is nothing left for the trial court to adjudicate upon. All the trial court was supposed to do was to transmit the record of proceedings to the appellate court. But it deliberately chose to do otherwise. This is against Order 4 Rules 10 and 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. The lower court acted ultra vires.”

 

Justice Abang had insisted that he had jurisdiction to hear a motion for stay of execution of his earlier judgments delivered on June 27 even after the appeals against the judgments had been entered at the Appeal Court.

 

In her contributing judgment, Justice Ogunwumiju who presided at the hearing of the appeal also held that Justice Abang “deliberately stood the law on its head”‎ when he erroneously assumed jurisdiction to hear the motion and adjourned it till a later date.

 

She further held that Justice Abang lacked jurisdictions to interpret the provisions of the Court of Appeal being the rules of a superior court. Judgment is still ongoing in the main appeal challenging Justice Abang’s Judgment which removed the governor from office.

 

 

©thisdaylive

According to TVC NEWS Abia worker protest ova unpaid salaries and took their protest letter to the state house of assembly stressing the need for EFCC to prob the past GOV's of the state

No abusive words pls

Which majority is happy?is it the workers you a owing many months of salary or the landlord's you destroyed there houses and made the place water logged that is happy

The ruling of the Court of Appeal which favoured Gov. Okezie Ikpeazu has come and gone, but most Abia State civil servants are completely disappointed at the Court of Appeal panel because of their believe that Dr. Uchechukwu Sampson Ogah has the capacity to turn the state finances around and make salary payment consistent.

Abia State civil servants are the worst hit on the issue of none payment of salaries, Abia Facts Newspaper learnt that Local Government workers are owed between 5 – 6 months, ministry workers are owed between 4 – 5 months, while civil servants attached to Abia State health sectors and other educational boards are owed above 9 months.



One of AFN  reporter spoke with a senior staff in Health Management Board and he had this to say :

“My brother we have suffered, I wish there is another stronger word above suffering, that is what I would have used to describe our present situation. We here have not seen salary for the past 9 months, is that not wickedness?  How can someone claim to be governor of a state and his workers have not seen salary for 9 months and he still calls himself governor, what type of wicked governor is that?  Am a civil servant, am not a politician and I don’t care whether it is the turn of Ngwa or not, what I want is who has the capacity to pay salary should be the governor.. Gov. Ikpeazu has demonstrated that he lacks that capacity that’s why most civil servants wanted Ogah to take over so he that he can salvage us. I have a family, I have two kids in Abia State University, one is in class 5 in secondary school ,to pay school is a big problem, I have turned a begger, I am now a debtor.. See Abia Facts we are suffering ” he concluded.

Some other civil servants accosted were so disappointed at the decision of Judges of the Court of Appeal and are already showing sign of hopelessness.

Another lady interviewed by our reporter said :

“I am disappointed, not because I love Uche Ogah but because we civil servants are suffering under Gov. Ikpeazu. Me and my husband are civil servants, we had to sell our Toyota Camry to be able to pay School Fees of our kids in higher institutions ,I don’t know what we will sell again… Now that the Court people have ruled in his favour, it means suffering continues.. Abia Facts, are you people aware that workers and pensioners are dying everyday, what do you think is killing them, it is simply hunger and hypertension.. God of Abia State will surely deliver us.. She concluded.

It is so pathetic about the embarrassing situation of Abia State salary issue , while our neighboring states are trying their best to pay even if it’s half salary , Abia State government led by Gov. Okezie Ikpeazu has refused to pay.



Since after the judgment, the streets of Aba and Umuahia has been quiet, celebration is only visible within the domain of the political class..

APGA Abia State chapter has come out to disagree with the decisions reached by the Appeal Court judges in favour of Gov. Okezie Ikpeazu in their press statement just released.

In that same press statement, the party urged Gov. Okezie Ikpeazu and his camp to learn how to accept court judgements or decisions without creating a state of violence or sponsoring protests with state funds.

APGA PRESS RELEASE

The All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA)  Abia State has received the news of the judgement  of Court of Appeal siting in Abuja which upheld the election  of Dr. Okezie  Ikpeazu as the Governor  of Abia State after dismissing the verdict of an Abuja High Court  presided over by Justice Okon  Abang which earlier found Dr.  Ikpeazu guilty of supplying  false tax information and removed him as Governor. 
As a law abiding party with the utmost  interest of Abians at heart,  APGA is happy that the Uche Ogah led PDP faction and their supporters  have emulated the Alex Otti/ APGA example of peaceful conduct by accepting the judgment though unfavorable  in good faith and with absolute  equanimity while preparing  to explore the option of appeal  at the Supreme  Court; this is how a civilized and responsible  people behave in a democracy.
APGA hopes that the Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu -led faction of the PDP and their supporters would learn a lesson  from this and subsequently desist from the misuse of public funds through sponsored protests,  violence,  threats,  and general breach  of public peace whenever a judgement  goes against them; that is the only way  to show leadership responsibility  against selfish desperation.
In keeping to our long standing high regard for the judiciary and the Rule of Law, we respect the verdict  of the Court of Appeal and thus do not intend to embark  on a reckless voyage of pouring venom and vituperation against the Learned  Justices and their judgement the way the Ikpeazu PDP faction and their supporters do. However,  as interested parties we wish to make few critical but objectionable  observations in the judgment ;
First,  in the judgment,  the Appeal court held that  ” The inadequacies  of the tax receipts  cannot  be visited on Ikpeazu “.  The Court  premised this decision  on the basis  that Ikpeazu was not the one that prepared  the said documents.  We completely  disagree  with this decision  because  every taxable  adult whether  a private  individual or a government  employee /appointee  is expected  to know what he pays or what is being  deducted from his salaries as tax,  and therefore should care about the accuracy or otherwise of the information on his tax receipts,  especially  when  such details  are meant  to be submitted  for the purpose of an election.
Also the law does  not require the tax agency to be the supplier of the information to the appropriate electoral /political  institution, rather the aspirant who has been issued with such documents/information, such a person  is also expected by law to suffer injuries arising from any false information hence the need for accuracy  and thoroughness. So the attempt by the court to shift the consequences to the agency  that  cannot  be punished  here is unacceptable  to us.
Would the court have endorsed documents  showing  one year tax clearance or any other untrue information  from the accused just because  the information  contained  therein was not prepared  by him?
Could any other questionable explanation, even if it was an afterthought, from Abia state  Board of Internal  Revenue have corrected the false information, exonerated  the accused or justified  the false information he supplied when the agency in question  remains under the control of the accused?
We believe that the law must have envisaged  criminal connivance  between individuals  and institutions like a tax agency the way it is obtainable in Abia hence the constitutional prescription of punishment  against individuals that supply  false information.
Secondly and most importantly  the court claimed that the Federal  High Court presided  over by Justice  Abang lacked the jurisdiction  to have heard the case because it was not properly  filed having been signed by three lawyers for the Plaintiff  against  the requirement of one identifiable  legal practitioner, and accused the Judge  of assisting the litigant.
While APGA does not intend to delve deeply  into this purely technical  issue of filing/jurisdiction, we are,however, alarmed by its resurrection by the Appeal court when the Supreme  Court had earlier decided  on the issue  of jurisdiction  against  Ikpeazu  which necessitated it’s directive for the Federal  High Court to commence accelerated hearing in the case ab initio.
Without doubt,  the hasty dismissal  of the jurisdiction  of the Trial Court by Appeal court against what the Supreme Court had earlier decided must have aided its  decision to scratch  the key issues of tax on the surface. This leaves  us with the conviction that a thorough job may not have been done in this matter.
Finally,  APGA wishes to express its dismay over the not too impressive and honorable  utterances  of the Justices of the Court of Appeal since the just decided  case was brought before them.
We regret to state that our careful observation  suggests that the Judges derived joy using derogatory words against individuals rather than apply fair legal terms in accepting  or dismissing cases or applications of individuals  without necessarily  insulting  such persons  who have merely expressed  their rights in the most acceptable and constitutional  manner by coming to court.
The judges used such words against  APGA and her candidate  while dismissing the APGA joinder appeal,  and they also repeatedly  used such words  in the most insulting manner against Justice Okon  Abang, against known modern judicial  practices.
The Judges forgot that Justice Abang was a lone Judge  who was likely  to make more mistakes  in deciding  a case, unlike Appeal court with five justices who would put heads together  to decide a case.
Also when the Appeal court initially  ruled on the issue of jurisdiction  in favour  of Ikpeazu before the commencement of trial proper, the Supreme  Court took contrary position against the Appeal court but in support  of the earlier decision  of the Federal High Court,  the Supreme Court didn’t  resort to insulting the Appeal court Justices even though it upturned their verdict; we therefore  appeal to the Judges to behave better next  time by shunning  this swagger  of arrogance  that evokes  suspicious hostility.
As usual  we appeal to all Abians  across political  lines to shun political and sectional hate,   those engineered by selfish politicians. The present legal battle  is aimed at opening our democratic space while bringing to an end years of political docility and impunity that has held Abia down for the good of all; that is the beauty of democracy which can only be understood  and appreciated by those with knowledge  of democracy. 

Abia must be better.

Signed
Rev.  Augustine  Ehiemere
State Chairman,  APGA

The battle for Abia State  governorship seat seems not to be over even though the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Gov. Okezie Ikpeazu.

Based on the press statement just released by the media director of Dr. Uchechukwu Sampson Ogah, it points to the fact that the legal team of Ogah are already gearing up for the final battle at the Supreme Court and believing they will surely get judgement there.

HOPEFULLY, OUR RIGHT TO APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED.

We will get judgement at the Supreme Court.

Dear Abians,

Dr. Uchechukwu Sampson Ogah asked his supporters all over the state and beyond to stay calm and remain law abiding as his legal right to appeal in the judgement has not been Exhausted. He said that next line of action will be made known in details by his legal team

 



He also asked his supporters to keep praying for the state and his vision to make Abians Rejoice, for in due time trusting God and the Supreme Court, it will come to pass.

 

Nothing has spoiled yet as all hope is not lost.  We still have another final judicial window as a way out. The five Judges today in their wisdom took their decision and as a law abiding person, we respect that.

 

It is important to note that their ruling was that Justice Okon Abang lacked the jurisdiction to remove Ikpeazu. Not that Ikpeazu’s offences could not warrant his removal. At Supreme Court, the substance of his offences and their consequences would be properly decided on. We will be victorious there. Just trust in the justice of the land and on the Lord.

 

Let us remember that this project is divine. It will just take time but the end shall be glorious.  Let’s continue and never seize until God glorify his name in Abia State as He promised.

Sign

Peter Agba Kalu

Media Assistance to Uchechukwu Ogah sourc Abia facts newapaper

In this matter of false tax information representation, the decision of the Court of Appeal completely counters the former decision of the Supreme Court that ordered the Federal High Court to look  into the matter based on its merit, the Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction , but the Court of Appeal decision has turn around to reject all position agreed by the Supreme Court.



It is either the Appeal Court is now above the Supreme Court or our legal system has been so compromised that our judges no longer value higher decisions.

Based on the decisions of Appeal Court yesterday, it clearly shows that the Supreme Court has alot to do concerning this matter.

***************************************

Please read this news which emanated from the Supreme Court decision ordering the High Court to judge the matter based on merit (Sahara Reporters)

***************************************

The governor of Abia state, Okezie Ikpeazu is in fresh trouble as the Nigerian Supreme Court has ordered the Federal High Court to retry  the case challenging the fraudulent payment of taxes that enabled his qualification to contest the governorship election of the state.



 

Some of his opponents in the  People’s Democratic Party led by Obasi Uba Ekagbara and Chukuemeka Mba had dragged him to the Federal High Court via suit FHC/ABJ/ CS/1086/2014 over his eligibility to contest in the primary election conducted for governorship aspirants of the party in the state during the last election in 2015. Even though he won the primary, his opponents alleged that he did not qualify to contest as he did not pay his taxes of years 2011, 2012 and 2013 as at when due.

 

The plaintiffs dragged Ikpeazu, the People’s Democratic Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and produced convincing evidence at the Federal High Court that taxes allegedly paid for the three years were paid on the same day and therefore faulted the authenticity of Ikpeazu’s tax clearance certificate and the information contained in his INEC “Form CF100″. Ikpeazu had no answer to the allegations but challenged the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to hear the case. The trial court overruled his objection, but the Court of Appeal sided with him and ruled that the case ought to have been filed at the Abia State High Court.

 

Dissatisfied with the judgment Ikpeazu’s opponents took the matter to the Supreme Court. In its judgment handed down last Friday by five Supreme Court justices led by Justice Mohammed Muntaka -Coomassie, the court faulted the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to try the case.The justices then remitted the case back to the Federal High Court for the expedited trial of the tax fraud case challenging the eligibility of Ik[eazu to contest the governorship election. And to ensure that the hearing is not delayed the Supreme Court ordered the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria to ensure that  the case is heard and determined expeditiously.
Sauce:Abia facts newspaper

Home » Abia State News » IKPEAZU VS OGAH: WILL THIS JUDGEMENT STAND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ?

IKPEAZU VS OGAH: WILL THIS JUDGEMENT STAND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ?

August 19, 2016 5:59 am by: Abia Facts News Editor Category: Abia State News, Editorial Leave a comment A+ / A-
It is often very confusing and disturbing the decisions that most times emanates from our temple of Justice in Nigeria. Often this rulings and decisions enforces the idea that it is either the judges do not know what they are doing or they were induced to do so, especially in cases where predence are on ground.

In this matter of false tax information representation, the decision of the Court of Appeal completely counters the former decision of the Supreme Court that ordered the Federal High Court to look  into the matter based on its merit, the Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction , but the Court of Appeal decision has turn around to reject all position agreed by the Supreme Court.



It is either the Appeal Court is now above the Supreme Court or our legal system has been so compromised that our judges no longer value higher decisions.

Based on the decisions of Appeal Court yesterday, it clearly shows that the Supreme Court has alot to do concerning this matter.

***************************************

Please read this news which emanated from the Supreme Court decision ordering the High Court to judge the matter based on merit (Sahara Reporters)

***************************************

The governor of Abia state, Okezie Ikpeazu is in fresh trouble as the Nigerian Supreme Court has ordered the Federal High Court to retry  the case challenging the fraudulent payment of taxes that enabled his qualification to contest the governorship election of the state.



 

Some of his opponents in the  People’s Democratic Party led by Obasi Uba Ekagbara and Chukuemeka Mba had dragged him to the Federal High Court via suit FHC/ABJ/ CS/1086/2014 over his eligibility to contest in the primary election conducted for governorship aspirants of the party in the state during the last election in 2015. Even though he won the primary, his opponents alleged that he did not qualify to contest as he did not pay his taxes of years 2011, 2012 and 2013 as at when due.

 

The plaintiffs dragged Ikpeazu, the People’s Democratic Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and produced convincing evidence at the Federal High Court that taxes allegedly paid for the three years were paid on the same day and therefore faulted the authenticity of Ikpeazu’s tax clearance certificate and the information contained in his INEC “Form CF100″. Ikpeazu had no answer to the allegations but challenged the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to hear the case. The trial court overruled his objection, but the Court of Appeal sided with him and ruled that the case ought to have been filed at the Abia State High Court.

 

Dissatisfied with the judgment Ikpeazu’s opponents took the matter to the Supreme Court. In its judgment handed down last Friday by five Supreme Court justices led by Justice Mohammed Muntaka -Coomassie, the court faulted the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to try the case.The justices then remitted the case back to the Federal High Court for the expedited trial of the tax fraud case challenging the eligibility of Ik[eazu to contest the governorship election. And to ensure that the hearing is not delayed the Supreme Court ordered the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria to ensure that  the case is heard and determined expeditiously.

Home » Abia State News » IKPEAZU VS OGAH: WILL THIS JUDGEMENT STAND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ?

IKPEAZU VS OGAH: WILL THIS JUDGEMENT STAND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ?

August 19, 2016 5:59 am by: Abia Facts News Editor Category: Abia State News, Editorial Leave a comment A+ / A-
It is often very confusing and disturbing the decisions that most times emanates from our temple of Justice in Nigeria. Often this rulings and decisions enforces the idea that it is either the judges do not know what they are doing or they were induced to do so, especially in cases where predence are on ground.

In this matter of false tax information representation, the decision of the Court of Appeal completely counters the former decision of the Supreme Court that ordered the Federal High Court to look  into the matter based on its merit, the Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction , but the Court of Appeal decision has turn around to reject all position agreed by the Supreme Court.



It is either the Appeal Court is now above the Supreme Court or our legal system has been so compromised that our judges no longer value higher decisions.

Based on the decisions of Appeal Court yesterday, it clearly shows that the Supreme Court has alot to do concerning this matter.

***************************************

Please read this news which emanated from the Supreme Court decision ordering the High Court to judge the matter based on merit (Sahara Reporters)

***************************************

The governor of Abia state, Okezie Ikpeazu is in fresh trouble as the Nigerian Supreme Court has ordered the Federal High Court to retry  the case challenging the fraudulent payment of taxes that enabled his qualification to contest the governorship election of the state.



 

Some of his opponents in the  People’s Democratic Party led by Obasi Uba Ekagbara and Chukuemeka Mba had dragged him to the Federal High Court via suit FHC/ABJ/ CS/1086/2014 over his eligibility to contest in the primary election conducted for governorship aspirants of the party in the state during the last election in 2015. Even though he won the primary, his opponents alleged that he did not qualify to contest as he did not pay his taxes of years 2011, 2012 and 2013 as at when due.

 

The plaintiffs dragged Ikpeazu, the People’s Democratic Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and produced convincing evidence at the Federal High Court that taxes allegedly paid for the three years were paid on the same day and therefore faulted the authenticity of Ikpeazu’s tax clearance certificate and the information contained in his INEC “Form CF100″. Ikpeazu had no answer to the allegations but challenged the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to hear the case. The trial court overruled his objection, but the Court of Appeal sided with him and ruled that the case ought to have been filed at the Abia State High Court.

 

Dissatisfied with the judgment Ikpeazu’s opponents took the matter to the Supreme Court. In its judgment handed down last Friday by five Supreme Court justices led by Justice Mohammed Muntaka -Coomassie, the court faulted the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to try the case.The justices then remitted the case back to the Federal High Court for the expedited trial of the tax fraud case challenging the eligibility of Ik[eazu to contest the governorship election. And to ensure that the hearing is not delayed the Supreme Court ordered the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria to ensure that  the case is heard and determined expeditiously.

@ffk #ffk Fuel and kerosene nko?

Buhari once said Gowon told them that keeping Nigeria one is a task that must be done now Gowon is now calling for restructure becos he know that Nigeria will be destroyed without restructuring my question is now since Buhari mentor has spoken what is he till waiting for, everybody want Nigeria to remain in peace through restructuring even the avengers let him act ASAP before things get out of hand

This guys are useless what a mess

You ppl r begining to make ppl like me go crazy,you didnt dump #DAO before now and you expect ppl like me believe you are just waking up from slumper or becoming disenchanted from your once one and only man are you serious,you would have dropped him long before now or maybe you are hiding a skeleton on your closet whatever plus you minus you #DAO(Dr Alex Otti) for life