…“Judgment not in tandem with position of the Law”, C. K Anyanwu Esq.
The Honorable (Prof) Paul Nnamchi has rejected the verdict, yesterday, of the National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal, which nullified his election as the representative for the people of the Enugu East/Isi-Uzo Federal Constituency at the National Assembly. Professor Nnamchi, demonstrating unwavering confidence in the judiciary, is now proceeding to the Appeal Court to appeal the decision.
The tribunal based its decision on the accusation that Nnamchi, a biomedical engineering professor at the University of Nigeria, did not resign from the institution, and so announced Cornelius Nnaji of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winner of the election conducted last February 25.
To address this development, Professor Nnamchi’s Media Adviser, Sam Nwanze, has released a statement on his behalf. In it, the Professor expresses his dissatisfaction with the tribunal’s judgment, stating, “I am not satisfied with the judgment of the tribunal, which, to me, is not in accordance with the provisions of the law and the expectations of my teeming supporters.”
In light of this, Nnamchi has instructed his legal team to proceed to the Appeal Court, as they hold the final authority on the matter. Professor Nnamchi is optimistic of the judiciary’s ability to deliver justice, stating, “My confidence in the judiciary is not shaken by this judgment. I am hopeful justice will be served at the next level, and the current verdict will be overturned at the appellate court.”
Furthermore, Professor Nnamchi appealed to his constituents to remain calm and committed during this challenging time. He assured them of his unwavering dedication to defending the mandate they freely entrusted to him through their votes.
“I want to use this opportunity and appeal to my teeming supporters to remain calm as we are hopeful to reclaim the mandate at the Appeal Court,” Nnamchi remarked.
Professor Nnamchi expressed gratitude and appreciation to all his supporters who have shown solidarity, assuring them that he would fight relentlessly until justice is served.
“I can assure you all of my resolve to defend the mandate freely given to me through your votes by fighting to the end. It is not yet over. God bless all of you,” concluded Nnamchi.
A legal expert, C.K. Anyanwu, in support of Professor Paul Nnamchi’s stance of reclaiming his mandate in the appeal court, says:
“In accordance with the PDP v. INEC (2023) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1900) S.C. ruling, it is clear that no political party can challenge the nomination of a candidate from another political party.
“Regardless of any grievances or dissatisfaction a political party may have with the nomination process of another party, they do not possess the legal standing to challenge such nominations in court”.
Furthermore, Anyanwu states, “Similarly, a political party lacks the legal standing to contest the actions of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in relation to another political party”.
Hide quoted text
When discussing when a political party can file a pre-election matter, Anyanwu explains, “According to Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), a political party can only challenge the decisions and activities of INEC if it involves the disqualification of their own candidate, non-compliance with electoral laws related to the party’s own nomination process, election timetables, voter registration, or other INEC activities related to election preparation. Only when a political party or its candidates are directly affected do they possess the legal standing to file a pre-election matter”.
Moreover, Anyanwu emphasizes, “It is important to note that the court cannot entertain an action brought by a political party challenging the nomination of a candidate from another political party. Such an action would be considered meddling in the affairs of another party without any legal basis”. GMTNews
