The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Thursday, fixed November 11 for ruling on an application filed by a former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, seeking to restrain the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from holding its national convention.
Justice Peter Lifu fixed the date for ruling after the defence lawyers adopted their affidavits to show cause why the interim order should not be granted, and the plaintiff’s counsel adopted his counter affidavit and argued his case.
Mr Lamido, in the motion ex-parte moved by his lawyer, Jeph Njikonye, SAN, on October 31, had prayed the court to make the interim order, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed alongside.
The ex-governor said if the PDP was not restrained by the court, the party would be violating its constitution, and by implication denying him the opportunity to contest for the position of the national chairman of the party of which he is eminently qualified to contest.
Justice Lifu, in a ruling, had declined to grant the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025.
The judge rather ordered the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that are 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit to come and show cause why the ex-governor’s reliefs should not be granted.
Justice Lifu, who gave the defendants within 72 hours from the date they were served to respond, adjourned the matter until November 6 for hearing.
At the resumed hearing, Njikonye, who appeared for Mr Lamido, recalled that on October 31, the court ordered PDP and INEC to show cause why their application should not be granted.
Omokayode Dada, SAN, who represented PDP and Adamu Bello, who appeared for INEC told the judge that their separate affidavits to show cause had been filed and served to parties.
Joseph Daudu, SAN, however, announced appearance for parties seeking to be joined in the suit.
The parties seeking to be joined are Austine Nwachukwu, Imo PDP chairman; Amah Abraham Nnanna, Abia PDP Chairman and Hon Turnah George, who was said to be PDP Secretary, South-South geo-political zone.
Daudu said their application was dated and filed on November 5.
He said the parties seeking to be joined were the plaintiffs in the judgment that was delivered by Justice James Omotosho on October 31, restraining INEC from monitoring or recognising the scheduled November 15 and 16 of the PDP’s national convention.
He told the court that the certified true copy of the judgment was attached with their motion as exhibit.
The senior lawyer said they sought an order joining the applicants as necessary parties and a consequential order of amendment to all the processes filed in the suit.
Justice Lifu granted the prayers after the parties did not oppose the request.
Adopting their processes, PDP lawyer, Dada, said the affidavit to show cause was filed on November 4.
He said contrary to Lamido’s submission, he was not denied the purchase of the nomination form.
In the affidavit, the PDP said the days fixed by the National working Committee (NWC) for the purchase of nomination form for all the aspirants for national elective positions in the forthcoming convention had since expired before October 27 when Lamido arrived at the party’s national headquarters.
It said the party’s leadership had earlier approved the timetable and schedule of activity for the year 2025 elective national convention.
It said the timetable and schedule of activity was between September 3 and 30.
It said the party and its members were bound by its constitution, guidelines, notices and decisions.
The PDP said it had not violated any of the provisions of its constitution and guidelines or violated any aspirant’s right.
Mr Dada, in his argument, said the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case which, he said, fell within the internal affairs of the party.
He urged the court to dismiss the application.
INEC’s lawyer, Bello, in the same vein, prayed the court to refuse Lamido’s prayers.
He said the commission, in response to the order of the court, filed a 13-paragraph affidavit to show cause on November 4.
“I adopt the application for the court to refuse the application in the interest of justice,” the lawyer said.
Mr Bello said the reliefs sought against the commission in the motion ex-parte were in substance the same as prayers in Mr Lamido’s originating summons pending before the court.
He argued that granting the interim or interlocutory injunction sought would amount to prejudging the substantive issues in the suit.
Besides, he said the plaintiffs application is in substance an invitation to the court to delve into issues of internal/domestic affairs of PDP, a political party.
INEC, in the affidavit, said that a court of record should not dabble in a political question which remains the exclusive preserve of political parties which should be allowed to do their things.
Responding, Mr Lamido’s lawyer disagreed with the submission of PDP and INEC.
He said in response to their averments, separate counter affidavits were filed.
Mr Njikonye urged the court to take judicial notice of Exhibit D, in the application for joinder filed by Daudu which is the judgment delivered by Justice Omotosho.
The lawyer, who prayed the court to refuse PDP application, also urged the court to discountenance INEC’s argument.
“The question is who is the 2nd defendant (INEC)? My lord, the 2nd defendant is INEC. INEC, a national body, who is supposed to be unbiased,” he said.
According to him, INEC cannot cry more than the bereaved.
“The 2nd defendant should be independent and said whatever your lordship decides will be implemented. Is should be an umpire in conduct,” he said, adding that INEC cannot take itself to be a political party.
Njikonye made reference to a Supreme Court decision regarding how INEC should conduct itself.
“It is therefore within the purview of your lordship to make the right or appropriate order in this regard,” he said.
Also speaking, Daudu said the essence of the order is purely preservative.
He said this would help the court to have something to decide on.
Justice Lifu consequently adjourned the matter until November 11 for ruling and further proceedings.
(NAN)
Discussion about this post