On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in Abuja invalidated the candidacy of Michael Enyong as the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) governorship candidate for Akwa Ibom State. The court, presided over by Justice Hamma A. Barka, set aside the nomination of Enyong and awarded the candidacy to Umo Eno, a former Commissioner for Land. This followed a January 20, 2023 Federal High Court judgement that had set aside Eno’s nomination by the party.
The appellate court’s ruling in favour of the PDP vacated all orders made by the Federal High Court judgement in favour of Michael Enyong. Additionally, the House of Representatives member representing Uyo Federal Constituency was ordered to pay a sum of one million naira to the appellant as the cost of litigation.
The PDP had appealed the earlier judgement and urged the appellate court to reverse the decision of the lower court. Counsel to the PDP, Paul Usoro, SAN and Uwemedimo Nwoko, SAN, argued that the Federal High Court’s judgement was reached in error, and the court was misled by the plaintiff in the matter to arrive at an unjust conclusion.
The court agreed with Usoro’s argument that only the National Working Committee of a political party had the power to conduct primary elections for the purpose of nominating candidates for the general election. The appellate court held that the issue of statutory delegates who voted at the primary election was an internal affair of the party, and the lower court had no jurisdiction to inquire into the issue.
Justice Barka held that the lower court ought not to have inquired into the internal affairs of the PDP and had no discretion in law to exercise in the matter. On that grounds, the appellate court voided the judgement of the Federal High Court and set it aside, stating that it was predicated on errors.
This judgement comes amid a hotly contested race for the governorship of Akwa Ibom State, where the PDP and the All Progressives Congress (APC) are locked in a bitter political battle. It is unclear at this time whether there will be any further legal challenges to the appellate court’s decision.
