FORMER governor of Rivers State, Sir Celestine Omehia, is not comfortable with the Supreme Court judgment which removed him from office, less than two weeks ago. Strong indications have emerged that he has concluded plans to approach the apex court with an application to set aside the verdict which robbed him of his exalted seat.
A full panel of the Supreme Court, had, in the unanimous judgment, held that he (Omehia) was not the candidate of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which won the gubernatorial election held in the state on April 14. The court ordered him to vacate office with immediate effect since he was holding the position in error and illegally.
In his place, the court ordered the immediate swearing-in of former speaker of Rivers State House of Assembly, Hon Rotimi Amaechi, whom the justices of the apex court said was the lawful candidate of the ruling party (PDP) that won the election in the state. Omehia, Sunday Vanguard learnt, is shopping for a high profile lawyer who can push his case before the justices of the court and recover his lost mandate.
A source close to Omehia told Sunday Vanguard that he had expected that the apex court would hear the multiple applications filed by aggrieved parties in a case by Dr Andy Uba to reclaim his position as the governor of Anambra State to gauge his chances of winning back his seat. The source said that in view of the long adjournment given in the Uba case, Omehia might not delay any longer to file his application seeking for a review of the judgment in view of the fact that the judgment was allegedly given out of jurisdiction.
Although no formal application is pending before the court now, the judgment, has, no doubt, polarized the legal community into three factions. A group is contending that the judgment by the Supreme Court was entered in error and should be reversed. Another believes the judgment meets the justice of the case but that it has radicalized the nation�s jurisprudence and that it might be necessary for the apex court to depart, in nearest future, from the ratio deccidendi in the case.
The third group is saying that the judgment is okay and must be left undisturbed. Notwithstanding the fact that many lawyers are analysing the verdict on daily basis, some feel that it would be proper and better to await the reasons the Supreme Court handed down its judgment before subjecting it to analysis.
An Abuja-based member of the inner bar, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), is one of those that believed that the reasons for the judgment must be awaited before critiquing it. He, however, in a chat with Sunday Vanguard, said that the judgment was good. His words: �As a matter of fact, I must commend the spirit behind that judgment and the dynamism that the court has restored to the administration of justice in the country. But many people are worried because of the fact that the man that was installed actually did not contest the election.
�Democracy implies that people must properly identify their candidates running for the poll. Because it is possible that if he had contested the election on the platform of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the electorate could say they didn�t want Amaechi again or that they didn�t even want PDP again. The judgment is quite debatable. To some extent, I believe that it has changed the nation�s jurisprudence. But we must give a little time for the court to give its reasons before we can subject the judgment to thorough analysis.�
Nov42007