Ondo: Keyamo got it wrong on Supreme Court judgement- Abe

Ex-Rivers Senator, Magnus Ngei Abe, has said that Labour Minister (State) Festus Keyamo got it wrong on the Supreme Court judgement involving Eyitayo Jegede vs Governor Rotimi Akeredolu case.

According to him, nothing in the judgement says that a Governor cannot serve as Chairman of any Committee in a political party

Recall that Keyamo had advised the Caretaker Chairman and Yobe Governor, Mai Mala Buni to step down and suspend the forthcoming congresses.

Reacting, Abe  appealed to All Progressives Congress (APC) members to thread cautiously.

His statement posted on Facebook is titled “No Keyamo: Self-immolation is not the option for APC”.

“Barrister Festus Keyamo, I am given to understand, was one of those legal luminaries whose stand swayed the President in support of the CECPC option as the only means to save our party from imminent self-destruction.

“That is why I was taken aback by the quick and sudden volte-face of Mr. Keyamo in the face o Jegede vs. Akeredolu. There is a popular saying that sometimes “where you stand on an issue is determined by where you sit”.

“The Supreme Court (according to Keyamo’s write-up) held that Buni was not a party to the case and so his status was not determined in the case of Jegede Vs. Akeredolu.”

He insisted the convention planning committee is a committee of NEC and that Buni was not appointed as executive chairman of the APC.

“He is our Convention Committee Chairman but because the Working Committee of the party was dissolved by NEC, the caretaker members are to take care of the affairs of the party on behalf of NEC until an Executive Chairman is elected by convention.

“This was carefully spelt out in the NEC resolutions that gave birth to CECPC. These documents and others pertaining to Buni, and his lack of remuneration and activities will be evidence before any judicial proceedings to determine the status of the Buni-led Caretaker Committee.

“Any member of the party who is emboldened by Barrister Keyamo’s interpretation of Jegede Vs. Akeredolu to challenge the legality of the caretaker arrangement of our party on that basis may do so, but the litigant will of course bear the burden of proof, and the party should be ready to defend its own position based on the evidence.”.

“This is simply incorrect. No two cases are the same. The Supreme Court itself wisely declined to make a pronouncement against Buni on the ground that he was not joined and not heard.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *