A major legal showdown is unfolding at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, as renowned constitutional lawyer, Prof. Sebastine T. Hon, SAN, leads a formidable team of over 50 lawyers in defence of Prof. Zacharys Anger Gundu against the Government of Nasarawa State and its Governor, Engr. Abdullahi A. Sule.
In Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3546/2023, the defence filed a 34-page Statement of Defence and Notice of Preliminary Objection, challenging the competence and constitutional validity of the suit, which it described as “incurably defective and devoid of any actionable claim.”
Prof. Hon’s team contends that the Writ of Summons violated critical provisions of the FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2023—specifically Order 2 Rule 2(5), Order 6 Rule 1, and Form 1—for failing to include an affidavit verifying the Defendant’s address and for neglecting to pay the required service fees.
According to the defence, this procedural failure renders the suit null and void ab initio.
The defence also accused the claimants of breaching Order 2 Rule 9, thereby robbing the court of jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Another key objection raised was the issue of misjoinder of parties. The defence argued that the Government of Nasarawa State was never mentioned in the allegedly defamatory statements, noting:
“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 further asserts that the suit improperly conflates personal injury with institutional identity, thereby distorting the legal basis of the claims.
A major constitutional argument advanced by the defence is the distinction between “Nasarawa State” and “The Government of Nasarawa State.”
Citing the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Prof. Hon emphasized that Nasarawa State is a federating unit of the Nigerian Federation, while The Government of Nasarawa State represents the political structure composed of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial arms.
The defence argued that the alleged publication referred only to “Nasarawa State” and Governor Sule personally, and not to the Government of Nasarawa State as a corporate entity.
In what legal experts describe as a potential constitutional precedent, the defence also maintained that Governor Sule is not the head of the entire government, but merely the head of the Executive Arm, while the Speaker of the House of Assembly and Chief Judge head the Legislative and Judicial Arms, respectively.
Any claim suggesting that the Governor embodies the entire government, the defence said, is “constitutionally erroneous and misleading.”
Additionally, Prof. Hon’s team challenged the territorial and constitutional jurisdiction of the FCT High Court, arguing that disputes involving a state and its government—or matters touching on Nigeria’s 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 insisted that Prof. Gundu’s statements were made in good faith, within the limits of constitutional rights, and in the public interest.
The court is expected to determine the Preliminary Objection before proceeding to substantive hearing.
Observers believe the outcome could become a constitutional landmark, potentially redefining the boundaries of executive authority, state identity, and defamation in public law.
No date has yet been fixed for the hearing.
About The Author
