By PAMELA EBOH, Awka
Justice Amina Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Awka Judicial Division on Thursday fixed March 4, 2025 for ruling on a motion to enable the Governor of Anambra State, Prof Chukwuma Soludo and 6 others to file their defence in a suit brought against them.
The suit cited that contrary to the law, the affected person’s ran the affairs of the 21 local government areas in the state of without democratically elected officials.
The second to eight defendants respectively, in suit no. FHC/AWK/CS/90/2024, initiated by an activist, Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, include the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Governor of Anambra State, Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Anambra State and Anambra State House of Assembly.
Others are former state governors, Dr. Chris Ngige, Peter Obi, and Willie Obiano, for themselves and on behalf of their transition chairmen and councillors.
Also, Mr Livinus Onyenwe for himself and on behalf of transition chairmen who served under the Soludo administration.
The several reliefs sought by the plaintiff is that, having acted contrary to the 1999 constitution (as amended), which they swore to uphold, the court should ban Soludo, Ngige, Obi and Obiano from contesting election, seeking re-election or occupying public office,
The plaintiff also sought an order of the court to compel the 2nd to 8th defendants to render public account before the court, of all funds, expended by them or agents and privies during their respective administrations, while executing their illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of offices at the local government council areas in Anambra State.
He further demanded exemplary damages of N100 billion in his favour, against the 2nd to 8th defendants.
When the matter came up before Justice Mohammed, a Senior State Counsel from the Anambra State Ministry of Justice, Peter Odili, told the court that the second to eight defendants filed a preliminary objection to the originating summons filed by the plaintiff, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.
He added that they also filed a motion on notice for an extension of time, within which the second to eight defendants will be expected to file their counter affidavit, written addresses and other processes in opposition to the plaintiff’s originating summons and deeming the processes as properly filed and served, the appropriate fees having been paid.
Odili noted that the motion for an extension of time was dated May 28, 2024 and filed on June 13, 2024.
He however prayed the court to grant the motion for an extension of time in their favour, relying on all the documents they filed, including their preliminary objection to the suit and reply to the plaintiff’s written address in opposition to their application for an extension of time on point of law.
In his response, Okonkwo who appeared for himself, told the court that he opposed the preliminary objection on point of law.
The plaintiff said he would adopt the written address that he filed in opposition to the motion for an extension of time on point of law.
He, however, maintained that a court has no power to make an order in respect of a case which its jurisdiction to try has been challenged.
