Appeal court hears Emenike's motion on substitution Sept 28
By Otikor Samuel
The motion for substitution of Governor Chibuike Amaechi with Sir Celestine Omehia brought by the Labour Party and its candidate, Ashley Emenike, awaiting hearing before the Governorship election petition Appeal Court sitting in Port Harcourt may begin on September 28, 2009.
Meanwhile, the Accord Party candidate, Chief Bekinbo Soberekon would wait till November 10, 2009 for the Supreme Court to decide a the constitutional interpretation sought by Governor Ameachi and the issue of jurisdiction which his counsel raised before the apex court.
These were the rulings of the Appeal Court announced on Thursday 25 June, 2009 by Justice Dalhatu Adamu, panel sitting on the Rivers State governorship petition.
Adjournment of the Labour Party's motion for substitution was as a result of the argument put forward by Prince F. O. Fagbemi counsel to Governor Amaechi, who the party sought to be substituted.
Prince Fagbemi observed that there was no proof of service of motion on substitution on the Peoples Democratic Party's national secretariat as claimed by counsel of the Labour Party.
He pointed out that the proof of affidavit of service which was before the court did not include motion of substitution, an essential document he argued was supposed to have been attached to the notice of ground of appeal and hearing notice as to allow for the day's business.
Governor Amaechi's counsel concluded his argument by submitting that the service was not appropriately done and asked the court to prevail on the Applicants/Appellants to convince their Lordship on what was ready served on the PDP whether it was motion for substitution or notice of ground of appeal and hearing notice.
Responding to Prince Fagbemi, counsel to the Labour Paty, I. C. Opi citing Order 2 Rule 6 of the Court of Appeal submitted that except otherwise, once the court is satisfied that notice of appeal has been communicated, no objection can arise on the service.
He stated that appeal includes all the processes in the service and cited paragraph eight of schedule in the Electoral Act 2006 to back his argument upon which the Appeal Court agreed that the service was proper but adjourned the matter to 28 September, 2009 during which he would be expected to file his written address.
