Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, adjourned till October 31, for judgment in the suit seeking to stop the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) National Convention slated for November 15 and 16, 2015.
Omotosho fixed the judgment day, shortly after all parties argued for and against the holding of the convention, which is meant to usher in a new executives of the party.
The suit either way it goes will determine who owns and runs the structure of the PDP as political activities gathers momentum for the 2027, general elections.
The plaintiffs who are against the conduct of the convention are alleged to be working with some persons outside the PDP to sabotage the interest of the PDP in the 2027 presidential election.
They are believed to be working for the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, who though a member of the PDP, is working in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), and is rooting for the return of President Bola Tinubu, come 2027.
Arguing the case of the PDP, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, told the court that the case of the plaintiffs is an internal affairs of the PDP, which is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
According to him, the plaintiffs alongside the National Legal Adviser, Kamaldeen Ajibade, SAN, are working allegedly working against the interest of the party hence, the decision of the National Working Committee (NWC) to drop Ajibade as a representative of the PDP in this matter.
“NWC held a meeting on September 30, NWC took a position that they cannot count on his impartiality on this matter”, Uche said, adding without the knowledge of the NWC, Ajibade rushed to court to file a counter to the suit.
He added that unlike the other defendants in the suit, especially the 3rd and 4th, Ajibade “failed, refused to ask the court to dismiss the case of the plaintiffs”.
Citing Article 42 of the PDP’s Constitution, Uche also faulted Ajibade and plaintiffs claim that it is only the National Legal Adviser that can represent the PDP, “when NWC takes a decision it does not lie on one person to come out and debate the issue”.
Besides, Uche argued that Ajibade being a member of the PDP NWC and NEC and a defendant in the suit, Ajibade was not qualified to represent the PDP in the instant case.
“The party has come out to say that if they proceed with him, they are not sure that their interest would be protected “, the senior lawyer submitted.
He therefore, urged the court to decline jurisdiction in the issue because it was an internal affairs of the PDP and that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary locus to file the suit having not exhausted the party’s mechanism for dispute resolution.
Meanwhile, Ajibade who was represented by R. A. Dada, SAN cited the court’s judgment as well as a public notice of the PDP, showing it is the National Legal Adviser that is the proper party to represent the PDP in the suit.
Other defendants however aligned with the submissions of Uche to urge the court to dismiss the suit as an internal affairs of the party.
National Chairman of the party, Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum represented by Paul Erokoro SAN asked the judge to decline jurisdiction on the ground that issues of convention and congresses are internal affairs of the party.
Similarly, the NWC and NEC representing by Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, argued that the 3rd plaintiff in the suit, in his affidavit acknowledged that their case bordered on the internal affairs of the PDP, urging the court to see the matter as such.
Jegede, further noted that the court had in last year delivered a judgment wherein it held that the court cannot interfere in the internal affairs of political parties.
He accordingly asked the court to dismiss the case of the plaintiffs for being incompetent and lacking in merit.
Responding, the plaintiffs submitted that their action was hinged on the need at establishing and promoting internal democracy in the PDP.
Speaking through their team of lawyers led by Chief Joseph Daudu, SAN, the plaintiffs told the court that the PDP violated sections of the Constitution, Electoral Act as well as the party’s own constitution in the conduct of the party’s congresses in some states, adding that, “no congress were conducted in 14 states”.
According to them the issue before the court has to do with whether the defendants violated the law and as such not an internal matter of the PDP.
They maintained that the fundamental issues bordering on democracy has not taking place for the convention to take place.
Besides, they urged the court to disregard the submissions of Chief Chris Uche, SAN, who appeared for the PDP on the grounds that it is only the party’s National Legal Adviser can represent the party instead of an appointed representatives.
In addition, Daudu claimed that the fact that the defendants did not file a notice of change of counsel, affected their case badly.
He therefore urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought in the originating summons.
After taking all arguments, Justice Omotosho announced that his verdict in the case would be delivered on October 31.
While the plaintiffs who instituted the case are Hon Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP chairman), Hon Amah Abraham Nnanna (Abia PDP chairman) and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South), the nine defendants are, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), PDP, Samuel Anyanwu, National Secretary of the party, Umar Baturrle, National Organizing Secretary of the party, NWC and NEC of the party, Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum, Ali Odefa and Emmanuel Ogidi.
Alex Enumah
About the Author
