The Supreme Court, on Thursday, clarified that Justice Abdu Aboki was not one of the three Justices of the court petitioned by the All Progressive Congress (APC) of plotting to subvert justice in the matter of the Imo North Senatorial District bye-election.
The apex court, however, said that Aboki is in the panel of five Justices of the court constituted to determine the appeal that emanated from the dispute surrounding the authentic candidate of the party in the December 5, 2020, senatorial bye-election
Justice Mohammed Musa Dattijo who presided over Tuesday’s proceedings and who made the petition public had mentioned himself, Abdu Aboki, and Helen Morenikeji Ogunwumiju as the three Justices mentioned to have held a meeting with leaders of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
But a statement by the Director of Press and Information of the court, Dr. Festus Akande, said that the name of Justice Abdu Aboki was never mentioned in the APC’s petition.
The Supreme Court statement read in part, “We need to state that the news that occupied strategic space in the media yesterday, Wednesday, March 24, 2021, which emanated from a petition purportedly written by the acting chairman of the All Progressives Congress and Governor of Yobe State, Alhaji Mai-Mala Buni against three Justices of the Supreme Court never mentioned the name of Hon Justice Abdu Aboki even though he is on the panel of five Justices hearing the appeal that resulted from the Imo North Senatorial District Bye-Election conducted on October 5, 2020.
You may also read: Supreme Court Strikes Appeals By Former Bayelsa Gov Dickson And PDP
“The information in circulation is not only wrong but equally misleading. It is pertinent to state that even though the acting chairman of the APC, Alhaji Mai-Mala Buni, has issued a disclaimer of the malicious and baseless petition, there is still a need to keep the record straight and also to admonish litigants, particularly politicians on the need to be guided by good conscience and decency in all their conducts especially when a case is before a court of competent jurisdiction, as such unguided disposition could send out the wrong signals.
“The Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court who have always been working assiduously to promote the rule of law, impartial and seamless dispensation of justice don’t deserve such orchestrated mudslinging, to say the least,” the statement said.
