Ikpeazu: Appeal Court Rebukes Abang, Says He 'Raped Democracy'

Posted by George on Fri 19th Aug, 2016 - tori.ng

Justice Okon Abang who has been accused of giving one of the most controversial judgments in the year 2016 has been publicly rebuked by a team of judges over his recent adjudication.

Justice Okon Abang

Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja has been lampooned by an appellate court that nullified his ruling on the sack of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia State over the alleged falsification of tax documents.

The People's Democratic Party chieftain yesterday enjoyed a victory against his challenger and party mate, Uche Sampson Ogah who has since headed to the Supreme Court to pursue his case.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday delivered a stringent rebuke of Justice Okon Abang for his ruling annulling the election of Gov. Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia, accusing the judge of “raping democracy”, according to Premium Times.

At the Court of Appeal on Thursday, a five-member panel led by Justice Morenike Ogunwumiju said Mr. Abang “raped democracy” when he ordered INEC to issue a certificate of return to Mr. Ogah without evidence of forgery against Mr. Ikpeazu.

According to the court, the judgement was erroneously based on the inadequacy of tax receipt which Mr. Ikpeazu cannot be blamed for.

“After reading through the judgement several times, I was amazed at how the trial Judge arrived at his conclusion of forgery against the appellant when there was no evidence of forgery.

"To say the least, his findings are ridiculous,” said Justice Ogunwumiju.

The court said Mr. Abang embarked on a “wild goose chase” when he attempted to help the plaintiff.

Ms. Ogunwunmiju said the case was not properly filed in the first instance.

While the law says only an identifiable legal practitioner can attest to a motion instituting a case before the lower court, three lawyers signed for the plaintiff.

“But on the motion which led to this appeal three people indicated themselves as lawyers and signed the document. It is not the business of the court to embark on a voyage of helping a litigant decide who filed his case,” the court said.