Court Dismisses Suit Seeking To Enforce Fundamental Rights Of Justice Ikpeme, Says No Evidence Of Discrimination

The Calabar Judicial Division of the Federal High Court has dismissed the application seeking to enforce the fundamental rights of Honourable Justice Akon Ikpeme over the non-confirmation by the Cross River State House of Assembly on the discriminatory ground that she poses a security risk, not being an indigene of the State.

The Application was filed by Kunle Edun, Esq., the current Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ike Augustine Esq, an Owerri based legal Practitioner, Emmanuel Ewere, O. Adams Ochuagu, and Adedapo Adejumo, Abuja based Legal Practitioners.

Kunle Edun, Esq., in a statement made available to TheNigeriaLawyer (TNL) said “the court agreed with the Respondents that there was no sufficient evidence to show that Hon. Justice Ikpeme was rejected by the HOA because of her State of origin, and that the Respondent was unable to furnish necessary documents to prove this fact. The court accordingly dismissed the main application.”

However, the Preliminary Objection which was filed for the striking out of the matter failed. Kunle said “The Court dismissed the Respondents’ preliminary objection urging the Court to dismiss the substantive application on the ground that the Plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the action and that the State High Court was the proper forum to hear the case, being that all the Respondents are agents and officials of Cross River State Government. The court agreed with Applicants’ submission that the Applicants have the requisite locus standi and that the provisions of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended does not delimit the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in respect of actions brought to enforce fundamental rights; that the Federal High Court has a special jurisdiction on Fundamental rights enforcement actions; and therefore, has a concurrent jurisdiction with States’ High Courts.”

Kunle said they have “applied for a copy of the judgement and shall study it upon receipt.”

He appreciated, on behalf of the Applicants, the legal team (with directions from Femi Falana, SAN) who represented them in the suit. “we thank you all for your suppport.” Kunle said

TNL recalls that yesterday the Applicants filed a Reply to the Preliminary Objection filed against their public interest litigation Suit.

The Objectors in the Application were the Speaker of the Cross River State House of Assembly, Cross River State House of Assembly and Government of Cross River State. They challenged the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to hear and determine the Applicants’ substantive application on the following grounds:

i. That the subject matter of this application does not fall within the provisions of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended and this court cannot entertain same.
ii. The Applicants lack the locus standi to bring this application against the Respondent having regards to the provisions of Section 46(1) of the Constitution