ABUJA, A 15-year legal battle initiated by Akwa Ibom politician, Hon. Emmanuel Obot, has ended with the Supreme Court affirming a landmark judgment that permanently bars former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Michael Kaase Aondoakaa (SAN), from holding any public office in Nigeria.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on December 10, 2021, in Appeal No. SC.939/2015, the apex court dismissed Aondoakaa’s appeal and upheld the concurrent decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which found that the former Attorney General acted in violation of the rule of law by attempting to frustrate the enforcement of valid court judgments. The dispute originated from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary election for the Uyo Federal Constituency seat in December 2006, where Obot emerged as the party’s candidate before he was later substituted, prompting a prolonged legal challenge.
The Supreme Court, in the lead judgment delivered by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, upheld the lower courts’ findings that Aondoakaa’s official letters, written while serving as Attorney General under the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, sought to prevent compliance with court orders directing that Emmanuel Obot be recognised as the rightful winner of the election dispute.
The court described the conduct as incompatible with the office of the nation’s chief law officer, adopting the Court of Appeal’s description of the actions as “a most sordid low in the administration of justice.”
The apex court consequently affirmed that Aondoakaa is not a fit and proper person to occupy the office of Attorney General of the Federation and issued a perpetual injunction restraining him from holding the office of Attorney General, Minister of Justice or any other public office in Nigeria. It also upheld the High Court’s award of ₦50 million in exemplary damages against the defendants, awarded an additional ₦2 million in costs to Emmanuel Obot, and invited the Nigerian Bar Association to subject the former Attorney General to its disciplinary processes.
The judgment is regarded as one of the judiciary’s strongest affirmations of accountability in public office and the supremacy of the rule of law.
