Chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, on Tuesday failed to appear before Justice Stephen Pam of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
On July 5, Justice Pam had ordered the INEC chairman to appear before him to show cause why he should not face committal for contempt of court.
The judge made the order while ruling on a motion of preliminary objection filed by INEC and its chairman in a contempt action instituted by Messrs. Ejike Oguebego and Chuks Okoye, Chairman and Legal Adviser of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Anambra State, respectively, against Yakubu.
At Tuesday hearing, Chief Adeboyega Awomolo (SAN), counsel for INEC, had applied for an adjournment to enable him respond to the application filed by applicants’ counsel, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), to show cause why he should not face committal for contempt.
“I will be asking your lordship for an adjournment to enable me respond,” Awomolo pleaded.
He told the court that he had filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeal against the ruling delivered on July 5.
He also pleaded for adjournment since, according to him, the applicants had yet to serve him their application for the matter to be heard during the vacation.
“I wrote a letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court that I am not favourably disposed to the case being heard during vacation,” he submitted.
“My lord, there is no affidavit of urgency that this matter be heard today”, Awomolo added.
In his reaction, Uche opposed the application for an adjournment and urged the court to proceed with hearing of the matter.
“My lord the contemnor disobeyed the order of the court as no explanation was proffered before this honourable court to show why Prof. Yakubu is absent from court,” he said.
“We, therefore, urge your lordship to deal with this issue of disobedience.”
In a short ruling, Justice Pam held that the fiat issued by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to hear the matter during vacation is still subsisting and that the court will continue to hear the matter during vacation.
The judge cautioned counsels to desist from not advising their clients to obey an order of court as “this disregard amounts to contempt of court,” he opined.
“The contemnor cannot ask favours from the court while he continues to disregard orders of court.”
Consequently, he adjourned hearing in the suit till August 1 during the vacation to enable the contemnor appear before the court in person to show cause why he shouldn’t be committed to prison.
It would be recalled that in dismissing the motion of preliminary objection, the court held that the filing of two suits cannot be classified as tantamount to abuse of court process.
The court rather reasoned that “it is the filling of the same application with different suit numbers that constitutes an abuse and forum shopping.”
Moreover, the court stated that the contemnor had failed to establish through verifiable and affidavit evidence that the plaintiff’s tenure of office had expired.
“I hereby hold that further objections further raised by the contemnor are irrelevant because they have not established the date on which the plaintiff’s office expired,” the court ruled.”
