The Bayelsa State Governor Timipre Sylva yesterday told the? Court of Appeal in Abuja that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) fraudulently remitted the record of proceedings from a Federal High Court in Abuja to the appellate court just to hold up the ruling the trial court was about to make.
But under the rules, parties are not allowed to approach the appellate court, except under the special circumstance that the record of proceedings at the court below had been compiled and transmitted by its registry, according to Sylva’s counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).When the matter came up at the Appeal Court yesterday, Fagbemi pointed out the breach of process.
“The appellants gave the impressions that the record of proceeding at the court below was compiled and transmitted by its (court’s) registry whereas it was a record compiled and transmitted by the appellants themselves. And because they made it seem like it was a record compiled and transmitted by the court below, we had no choice than to concede. What I am saying is that they got us all here fraudulently. It is by fraud we are here without first getting a stay,” Fagbemi submitted.
The bubble burst on how the record of the court below was compiled when the lawyer to PDP’s Acting National Chairman, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) prayed the court to grant an application, seeking a departure from the rules. That application was to cure the defect inherent in the process of compiling and transmitting the records instead of the court itself doing so
Prior to the PDP gubernatorial primary, which led to the nomination of Henry Seriake-Dickson, Justice Gabriel Kolawole had asked the party to show cause why Sylva could not? remain? its candidate for the forthcoming Bayelsa State governorship election..
Justice Kolawole had warned that if PDP went ahead to conduct the primary without first coming to show cause, he would invoke the inherent power conferred on the court to cancel the exercise, but the party ignored the warning and went ahead to hold the primary.
However, the PDP filed an appeal challenging the ruling of the trial court?? at the Court of Appeal and also asked for stay of proceeding, thereby arresting the ruling the court below was expected to make.