The legal tussles and controversies threatening the conduct of February 6, 2010 governorship election in Anambra State is far from over with ‘controversial’ Mr. Ifeanyi Okonkwo seeking an injunction from Awka Federal High Court to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC from going ahead with the election. In his motion on notice which has already been served on INEC, Okonkwo who was the governorship candidate of the Nigeria Advance Party (NAP) in the 2003 Anambra governorship election wants the court to stop INEC pending the determination of his substantive suit against the electoral body.

Mr. Ifeanyi Okonkwo who became ‘controversial’ after his encounter with the Supreme Court Judges had gone to court seeking the withdrawal of certificate of return issued Obi, by INEC.

He is relying on a High Court judgment in suit No. FHC/EN/CS/172/2003 dated 27/5/2005 which granted that he was unlawfully disqualified from contesting the 2003 governorship election in Anambra State by INEC.

Okonkwo is therefore, in his substantive suit asking for “an order directing INEC to withdraw the purported certificate of return issued in respect of 2003 governorship election or issued to Mr. Peter Obi on the strength of the judgment of the Court of Appeal which formed the basis of Mr. Obi’s swearing in on 17/3/2006 as governor of Anambra State.”

But with the delay in giving judgment on the matter Okonkwo is asking for an interim injunction restraining INEC and the Resident Electoral Commissioner, Anambra State, “by themselves, servants, agents…from taking any further step in the preparation in any way in the conduct of regular election…on the 6th of February 2010 or any date pending the determination of the plaintiff/applicant’s suit.” Okonkwo’s application for injunction is based on the grounds that hearing of argument and adoption of all written argument by the parties took place on 15/7/2009 and judgment fixed for 13/10/09 and later adjourned till further notice.

He posited that hearing does not cease with the conclusion of the testimony of witnesses and adoption of written briefs but continues until judgment is delivered. He said that the object of maintaining the status quo by preservative injunction is for the protection of the subject matter from destruction and that it is for the mutual benefit of all the party to promote the feeling of confidence in administration of justice and rule of law.

Okonkwo pointed out that the 1st and 2nd respondents have acted without regards to the plaintiff/applicant’s rights and tried to ‘steal a match’ on him not withstanding the subsisting judgment of 27/5/05 and the present suit for the enforcement of the plaintiff’s rights declared in the judgment.

He said that the court has a duty to preserve the subject matter in the suit and that “the equitable jurisdiction of the court has been duly activated by the pendency of this action on the 21/02/2008 hence the need to maintain the status quo.

“A court has the power and duty to preserve the res in the case before it; until the court in any suit has decided a case, and held that it has no jurisdiction to hear a suit and strikes it out, there is in law and in fact a suit before the court in respect of which the court’s preservative jurisdiction can and ought to be exercised.”

From PETRUS OBI, Enugu