A former Minister of Aviation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode has hailed the Appeal Court ruling for recognizing Mr. Eyitayo Jegede as the bonafide candidate of Peoples Democratic Party in the Nov 26 election.
‘The usurpers, spoilers and agents of darkness have been exposed, justice has been done, the PDP is back and we are now on the rise”, Fani-Kayode said in a statement.
He adds, ‘congratulations to my brothers Eyitayo Jegede and Governor Segun Mimiko and to our National Chairman Senator Ahmed Makarfi and our great party the PDP in our historic victory at the Court of Appeal today.’ He concluded the statement by saying ‘Shame on Ali Modu Sheriff, Jimoh Ibrahim and their Justice Okon Abang.’
Recalled that whereas Jegede emerged from primary election that was sanctioned by the Markarfi-led NWC of the PDP, Ibrahim on the other hand, secured his ticket from the Modu-Sheriff faction of the party. Meanwhile, in its verdict on Wednesday,
The appellate court, held that Justice Abang’s refusal of to grant fair hearing to Jegede, “rendered the entire proceedings before his court a nullity”. According to Justice Saulawu, “Indeed it is obvious from the records that the appellant’s name had been duly published as the governorship candidate of the 11th respondent (PDP) for the November 26 Ondo governorship election”
The court further held that the lower court was in grievous error when it ordered the publication of Ibrahim’s name. It said the decision of the high court was in total breach of the provision of section 36 of the 1999 constitution, which it said forbade any court from denying fair hearing to a party likely to be affected by final decision of the court. Justice Saulawa, said the action of the court violated the legal doctrine of audi altarem partem.
“The tenets of natural Justice entails that a party ought to be heard prior to determination of case against them”. The appellate court also noted that Justice Abang ordered INEC to “immediately” recognise Mr. Ibrahim who was never a party in the suit that culminated to both the June 29 and October 14 judgments.
“The Court below had no jurisdictional competence to make such order. I have no restriction in the circumstance in resolving the second issue equally in favour of the appellant”.
