Attempts within the All Progressives Congress, APC, in Cross River State, to implement a resolution to remove Alphonsus Eba, the embattled State Chairman of the party, have been barred by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja.
The court further barred the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and other respondents from implementing a resolution allegedly intended to remove Eba.
Justice J. E. Obanor, presiding at Court 26, Jabi, Abuja, issued an interim order marked FCT/HC/CV/5197/2025 and dated December 18, 2025, in the suit filed by Eba against the APC, Mr Ekum Ekok Ojogu, Mr Patrick Asikpo Okon, and INEC, after he approached the court through a motion ex parte filed by his counsel, Ayotunde Ogunleye, SAN, seeking protection from what he described as an unlawful resolution dated November 26, 2025, which allegedly sought to prevent him from carrying out his duties as the APC chairman in Cross River State.
The court in granting the application, prohibited the defendants, whether directly, through their agents, or associates, from implementing or continuing to implement the resolution, particularly any action that would impede Eba from carrying his duties as the APC State Chairman, pending the determination of the substantive motion before the court.
Justice Obanor also barred the defendants from preventing Eba from attending the APC National Executive Committee, NEC, meeting scheduled for Friday, December 19, 2025, as well as any other party meetings he is entitled to attend during his tenure or any extension granted by the NEC.
In a subsequent order, the court barred the second defendant, Ekum Ekok Ojogu, or any other individual, from presenting himself as the Acting State Chairman of the APC in Cross River State while the claimant’s tenure remains in effect.
The court also directed all defendants to refrain from initiating, discussing, or taking any action or making any decision that could negatively impact Eba’s position or rights as the duly recognized state chairman of the party, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
After reviewing the filings before the court, the judge ruled that there were sufficient grounds to grant the interim reliefs requested by the claimant.
“Having gone through all the processes before the court and being satisfied as to the need to grant the interim orders sought, Motion No. M/16959/2025 is hereby granted, and the orders are made as prayed, pending the determination of the Motion on Notice,” the judge ruled.
The judge subsequently adjourned to January 22, 2026, for the hearing of the motion on notice.
