Legal Affairs
Anambra illegal caretaker committees: unease in Awka as March 4 countdown tiks & toks
Sources close to the Anambra State Government have disclosed to Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) that there is a palpable unease in Agu Awka, the seat of power, as March 4, 2025, countdown gets nearer.
The countdown involves the ongoing suit respecting illegal caretaker committees instituted by past and present governments in the state.
Justice Amina Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Awka Judicial Division, had fixed March 4, 2025, for ruling on a motion.
The motion is to enable Anambra State Governor, Professor Charles Chukwuma Soludo, and six others to properly file their defence in a suit filed against them by an activist, Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo on behalf of himself.
DDM had, it could be recalled, reported on May 3, 2024, that former governors of Anambra State, including Dr. Christopher Ngige, Mr. Peter Obi, Chief Williams Obiano and the current governor, Professor Soludo, are seemingly in neck-deep trouble.
The second to eight defendants respectively include:
- The Federal Republic of Nigeria,
- Governor of Anambra State,
- Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Anambra State,
- Anambra State House of Assembly,
- Former Governor Chris Ngige for himself and on behalf of their transition chairmen and councillors
- Former Governor Peter Obi for himself and on behalf of their transition chairmen and councillors
- Former Governor Willie Obiano for himself and on behalf of their transition chairmen and councillors, and,
- Mr Livinus Onyenwe for himself and on behalf of transition chairmen who served under the Soludo administration.
The trouble revolves around the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) funds to the 21 Local Government Councils in the state since 2003, beginning with the administration of Dr. Ngige.
Running a state without democratically elected officials
Dr. Okonkwo had approached the Federal High Court of Anambra State, Awka Judicial Division, holden at Awka.
The suit predated the July 2024 judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria which held that it is unconstitutional for state governors to hold funds allocated for local government administrations.
The judgement also declared that a state government has no power to appoint a caretaker committee.
The Supreme Court further made it clear that a local government council is only recognizable via a democratically elected government.
The Plaintiff said his action was initiated by originating summons for declaratory reliefs, pursuant to a subsisting judgment of the Federal High Court by Justice Lewis Allagoa in suit no FHC/EN/CS/90/2005.
He noted that when the processes were served on the defendants, the 1st defendant (Federal Government) entered no defence.
However, the second to eight defendants filed a preliminary objection to the originating summons, questioning the jurisdiction of the court.
Okonkwo prayed the court to adjudicate on the right of the state governments, both past and present, to run the affairs of the 21 local government areas in the state without democratically elected officials.
The human rights activist, the Plaintiff, argued that the conduct of the governments ran contrary to the law.
The Constitution and a subsisting court judgment had declared that Anambra State Government has no powers to appoint officials to govern Local Government Councils.
DDM reported that the suit was filed on April 17, 2024, with case no: FHC/AWK/CS/90/2024, at the Anambra High Court.
The plaintiff asked the court to ban Governor Soludo and his predecessors from contesting election, seeking for re-election or occupying public office.
He sought an order of the court to compel the 2nd to 8th defendants to render public account before the court, of all funds illegally expended by the or their agents and privies in the state during their respective administrations, while executing their illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of offices at the local government councils in Anambra State.
Okonkwo also insisted that, by running the affairs of the 21 local government areas in the state without democratically elected officials, the respondents denied him his constitutional right to vie for any electoral post in the state, to vote and be voted for.
N100 billion damages
He, therefore, demanded N100 billion for exemplary damages against the 2nd to 8th defendants.
When the matter came up for hearing last month, a Senior State Counsel from the Anambra State Ministry of Justice, Peter Odili, told Justice Mohammed that the defendants filed a preliminary objection to the originating summons filed by the plaintiff.
According to the Counsel, the respondents are challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.
He also said that they filed a motion on notice seeking for extension of time to enable the defendants to file their counter affidavit, written addresses and other processes.
The motion for extension of time, he noted, was dated May 28, 2024, and filed on June 13, 2024.
He prayed the court to grant the motion for extension of time in their favour.
Responding to the prayer, Okonkwo informed the court that he opposed the preliminary objection on point of law and that he filed a written address to that effect.
He argued that a court cannot take an application for extension of time where its jurisdiction is in contention.
To lend credence to his argument, he cited two cases Nwankwo versus Ononeze Madu (2005) and Britania versus Seplat.
He reminded the court that it has no power to make an order in a case its jurisdiction has been challenged.
After hearing the submissions of both parties in the suit, the judge fixed March 4, 2025, for ruling and hearing of the substantive suit.
Nigerians react
Some Nigerians have lauded Dr. Okonkwo for putting up a dogged fight in the courtroom.
A retired judge, who spoke on condition of anonymity, hailing Okonkwo, saluted Okonkwo, saying:
“When there is an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a suit, the only jurisdiction the court has is to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction.
“This principle of law has been decided by so many authorities: Owners of the MV ‘Arabella v. NAIC(Part 1097)NWLR ; Elabanjo v. Dawodu(Part 1001)NWLR are two decided authorities of the Supreme Court on the point that readily come to mind.
“If there is pending in the suit an application for extension of time to file other process, the court cannot in the face of the objection challenging its jurisdiction proceed to hear such an application.
“At that preliminary stage, the court has one and ONLY one duty, namely, to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain the case.
“It is only after it has determined the issue and assumed jurisdiction that it can then proceed to consider other applications in the cause.”
Another concerned Nigerian went ballistic against the judge, saying:
“My Lord, Nigeria has deep problems; you can imagine that this Amina Mohammed found her way as Judge of the Federal High Court?
“Your lordship… I am so sad when she gave an illegal directive for the state counsel to move the motion for Extension of time firstly and I respectfully contended that it is incongruous and that her hands are tired.
“I call the media people to expose the Judge’s emptiness. My lord, how can I call this lady Judge your brother Judge?”
Yet another observer, a serving judge, lamented:
“I feel so sad. So that was what happened? It is most unfortunate. Quota system has killed this country.
“To borrow your words, she is an ‘illiterate’. It is highly regrettable.
“I cannot count the number of times in my judicial career when such a scenario played out in my court.
“I simply wrote a short ruling refusing to hear any other pending application in the cause.
“I then called on counsel who filed the objection to proceed with it. In almost all the cases, I upheld the objection.”
Another observer contended that the decision of Justice Mohammed to take the motion for an extension of time before the preliminary objection is uncharacteristic of the Nigerian legal system.
he cited a former Chief Justice of England, Lord Gordon Hewart’s famous speech:
“It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
As the March 4 appointed date approaches, it is “all eyes on the judiciary” which was brought into national spotlight by the present suit.
For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook
Continue Reading
