Court Insists on Arrest of INEC Boss, Mahmood

Justice Stephen Pam of the Abuja Diivision of the Federal High Court on Tuesday held that his order of August 1 to the police to arrest and produce the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Yakubu Mahmood, in court, still subsists.
The Judge said Mahmood must be arrested and brought to court to explain why he should not be committed to prison over alleged disobedience to order of the court.
The Appeal Court had on August 13 restrained the police from arresting the INEC chief.
The court also halted Mohmood’s trial at the lower court pending the determination of the appeal filed by Mahmood.
But when proceedings resumed Tuesday at the Federal High Court, Justice Pam insisted that his order still remained valid
Consequently, he ordered that the police must arrest and produce Malmood in court on August 16, the next adjourned date.
Justice Pam had on August 1, issued a bench warrant against the INEC chief, following his failure to appear before the court on three occasions to defend himself in the contempt charge brought against him by Ejike Oguebego and Chuks Okoye, Chairman and Legal Adviser of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Anambra State, respectively.
Based on the first order, the police was suppose to produce the INEC chairman in court on August 8, however, he was not in court on the said date, forcing the court to adjourn to August 14 with the court again affirming its earlier order of August 1.
When the matter came up Tuesday, the INEC chairman was not in Court. His counsel neither appeared nor sent a message to the court on why they were not in court.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Kanayo Okafor, informed the court of the ruling of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on August 13, which ordered a stay of execution of the warrant of arrest as well as the proceedings at the trial court.
However, in a short ruling, Justice Pam held that the court is a court of record and as such would require the ruling or judgment of the appellate court, adding that there is no proof of such decision of the higher court before him to be guided by.
“At the commencement of proceedings, counsel to the applicant, Kanayo Okafor informed the court that the Court of Appeal on Monday, asked the court to stay proceedings in the matter.
“The counsel to the respondent is not in court and no reason has been given for their absence.
“The contempt proceedings and the bench warrant issued for the arrest of Prof. Mahmood, INEC Chairman still subsists, the IGP is to carry out the order of the arrest of Yakubu.
“This court being a court of record, has nothing to prove that there was an order for stay from the Court of Appeal”, the Judge held.
Justice Pam, subsequently adjourned to August 16 for the police to produce Mahmood in court for the trial.
Mahmood, who is challenging the order of his arrest at the Court of Appeal, claimed that Justice Pam acted in bad faith in the issuance of the arrest order because he had already filed a pending appeal against the order and the attention of the judge drawn to the appeal.
His lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), had argued that if the appeal was not heard by the time the court would be sitting in September, his client would have been sent to prison, adding that the lower court was bent on sending Mahmood to jail.
However counsel to the respondents, Goddy Uche SAN, insisted that the trial was yet to reach the stage where Mahmood could be jailed, adding that what the trial court is asking for is for the INEC chief to appear in court to show cause why he should not be committed to prison.
He said the trial Judge had been unable to deliver his ruling on the contempt charge because of Mahmood’s continued absence in court.
The three man panel of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Abdu Aboki, held Monday that it would be better for the court to take the appeal and the substantive suit together.
The court then ordered for a stay of execution of the warrant of arrest on the INEC boss as well as a stay of proceedings of the matter at the trial court.
“Parties have agreed that the application cannot be taken today, since they have not filed their argument”, he said, adding that, argument cannot be taken without delving into the main issues.
“The proper order is to adjourn for parties to file their brief of argument and since the court below is aware of the appeal and considering the legality of the warrant of arrest issued, it would be prejudicial for the lower court to continue with the case.
“We therefore stay execution of the warrant of arrest pending the determination of this appeal and the substantive suit which would be taken together at the adjourned date”, the court held.
The matter was then adjourned till September 17, 2018, for the hearing of the appeal and the substantive suit.

Author: News Editor

9184 stories / Browse all stories

Related Stories »

Provide your email below, and we will notify you the latest news freely.


calendar »