The lead counsel defending Prof. Zacharys Anger Gundu in the suit filed against him by Governor, Engr. Abdullahi A. Sule, an eminent constitutional lawyer, Prof. Sebastine T. Hon, SAN and team of erudite lawyers, have filed a statement of defence.
In the Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3546/2023 at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the defence, through a 34-page Statement of Defence and Notice of Preliminary Objection, challenged the competence and constitutional validity of the suit, describing it as “incurably defective and bereft of any actionable claim.”
Prof. Hon’s team of over 50 lawyers reckons that the Writ of Summons by he complainant violates Order 2 Rule 2(5), Order 6 Rule 1, and Form 1 of the FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2023, for failing to attach an affidavit verifying the Defendant’s address and for neglecting requisite service fees.
This procedural default, the defence insists, renders the entire case null and void ab initio.
The defence further avers that the originating processes were filed in breach of Order 2 Rule 9, thereby stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Another strong pillar of the objection is misjoinder of parties. According to the defence, the Government of Nasarawa State was never mentioned in any of the alleged defamatory statements thus their is no actionable claim by the governor.
“The 1st Claimant is not mentioned anywhere in the words pleaded as defamatory. It therefore has no actionable claim in defamation against the Defendant,” the document states.
The defence therefore argues that the suit wrongly merges personal injury with institutional identity.
A central highlight of the defence is its constitutional distinction between “Nasarawa State” and “The Government of Nasarawa State.”
Citing the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Prof. Hon explained that Nasarawa State is a federating unit, while The Government of Nasarawa State is a political structure made up of three arms – the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
Consequently, he maintained, the alleged publication referred only to “Nasarawa State” and Governor Sule personally, not to “The Government of Nasarawa State.”
In what may set a constitutional precedent, the defence further argued that Governor Sule is not the head of the entire government but merely the head of the Executive Arm, alongside the Speaker and Chief Judge, who head the other two arms.
Any claim suggesting otherwise, it stated, is constitutionally erroneous and misleading.
The defence also challenged the court’s territorial and constitutional jurisdiction, arguing that disputes involving a state and its government, or touching on federal structure, fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in Section 232(1) of the Constitution.
Summarising the Defendant’s position, Prof. Hon described the suit as “a politically motivated overreach” and “an attempt to silence legitimate public discourse.”
He maintained that Prof. Gundu’s statements were made in good faith, within constitutional limits, and in the public interest.
The court is expected to determine the Preliminary Objection before the substantive hearing. Legal observers believe the case could become a constitutional watershed, redefining the limits of executive authority, state identity, and defamation in public law.
No date has yet been fixed for hearing.
