Atiku vs Obasanjo:  Appeal Court orders parties to maintain status quo
The Court of Appeal, Abuja yesterday ordered parties to maintain “status quo ante belum” in the suit over the controversy between President Olusegun Obasanjo and his deputy, Atiku Abubakar.
The court, guided by the provision of Section 295 of the 1999 Constitution has also remitted the case to the Supreme Court for determination.
By this order, the court directed all parties to the suit not to resort to self help or take any step that would vitiate or undermine the outcome of the suit at the apex court.
By implication, Atiku remains the Vice President and would continue to enjoy all the constitutional rights and privileges of his office unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise.
It would be recalled that amidst the raging controversy between Obasanjo and Atiku, the VP was expelled from PDP for alleged anti-party activities.
Specifically, Atiku was alleged to have openly renounced his membership of PDP and declared for another party, Action Congress as their presidential flag bearer for 2007 poll shortly before he left for vacation in the US.
His seat was allegedly declared vacant, a position the Presidency had openly denied.
The VP through his counsel, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) leading other seven Senior Advocates of Nigeria approached the appellate court for certain constitutional questions on when and how the seat of the VP could be declared vacant.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls the Attorney General of the Federation had also filed a suit asking the same court to declare Atiku seat vacant for cross carpeting to another party and castigating the PDP and President Obasanjo the back of whom he rode to his official seat.
NAN recalled the Presidency withdrew the case on the ground that they would join issue with Atiku in his case and file counter claims to achieve their aim.
The case filed on behalf of the Presidency by Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) was accordingly struck out by the court leaving only Atiku’s case for determination.
At the maiden hearing of Atiku’s case on Jan. 10, a panel of five Justices presided over by the President of the Appeal Court, Justice Umar Abdullahi, raised suo-motu (on their own) that they would want to remit the case to the apex court for expeditious determination.
“We appreciate the fact that this is a grave constitutional issue, time is of essence and we don’t want the State to be held in suspense for too long” he had said.
NAN recalled all parties to the suit commended the panel for the decision adding that appellate court under Section 295 of the 1999 Constitution has the power to do so and that it would save their time, energy and cost.
Also at the maiden hearing, Atiku’s counsel Chief Wole Olanipekun asked for an order of preservative order restraining parties from taking steps that would vitiate the outcome of the case at the Supreme Court.
He alleged that hostility has been kept in abeyance between his client and the respondents.
Counsel representing the Presidency, Adebayo Adenipekun (SAN) from Babalola’s chamber had opposed granting the order on the ground that it would prejudge and preempt the apex court.
He contended that the order formed part of the relief the plaintiff asked the court to grant in the substantive suit.
Adenipekun had said he would rather enter an undertaking before the court that his client would neither arrest Atiku nor do anything that would pre-empt the decision of the apex court on the case.
Counsel to the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Patrick Ikwueto (SAN), Counsel to the National Assembly, Chief Chris Uche (SAN) and counsel to INEC, Chief Joe Gadzama (SAN) had also respectively opposed granting the order by the appellate court before refer ing the case to the apex court.