An Abuja High Court on Thursday
described the Peoples Democratic Party’s plan to hold its
special convention on August 31 as “recklessness of a high degree.”
It therefore stopped the
convention pending the determination of a suit filed by three members
of the party: Abba Yale, Yahaya Sule and Bashir Maigudu.
The action by the court presided over
by Justice Suleiman Belgore, coincided with the inauguration of the
30-member committee constituted by the National Working Committee of the
PDP to reconcile aggrieved members of the party.
Yale, Sule and
Maigudu had in their application filed by Jibrin Okutepa
(SAN), asked for an order restraining Alhaji
Bamanga Tukur from acting as the party’s national chairman.
The trio had
earlier gone to court to challenge the “election or appointment” of members of
the NWC on the grounds that their emergence breached certain
provisions of the PDP constitution . But after most of
the NWC members voluntarily resigned, they again asked the court to nullify the
appointments of the national officers, whose nominations were
ratified at a National Executive Committee meeting of the party on June
20, 2013.
However, in his ruling on the
matter, Belgore refused to stop Tukur from serving as PDP chairman.
He also refused to nullify the appointment of the acting NWC members.
Belgore held that the request
that Tukur be stopped from acting as national chairman, as well as the demand
that the appointment of the acting NWC members be nullified, were not part of
the prayers sought by the plaintiffs in their originating summons.
But he ordered the party to refrain
from proceeding with the planned special convention, where national officers of
the party, are to be elected, in order to “allow sanity to reign.”
The judge upheld the plaintiffs’
argument that the plan by the PDP to hold the special convention,
even as the suit was pending, was aimed at foisting a fait accompli on the
court.
Frowning on the decision of the
PDP to take certain steps capable of foisting a state of helplessness on the
court, the judge held that, having submitted itself to the
jurisdiction of the court, the party must wait for its decision.
He said, “One will expect the PDP to
allow sanity to reign and tarry a while for the outcome of this
case. It amounts to recklessness of a high degree for the PDP to do or take
action that has direct effect on a case that is before this court.
“The emphatic point is that the PDP
is a party in the suit and subjected under the court; therefore the PDP is
obliged to wait for the outcome of the suit before taking any action.”
He noted that the move to hold
the convention meant pre-empting “the outcome of the decision in
the substantive suit, using as it were, self-help to the prejudices of the
administration of justice.”
“The step taken by the PDP would
diminish the integrity of the court and the court has a duty to impose
disciplinary measures on a recalcitrant party who violates the rule of law and
has no respect for the court,” Belgore added.
Earlier, the
judge had refused a preliminary objection in which the PDP sought the
dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it had been overtaken by events with
the resignation of the former NWC members.
PDP counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN),
had submitted that since the NWC members had already resigned, no new relief
existed in the originating summons. He noted that their names had since
been removed from the case by the court.
The PDP counsel argued that the case
was dead, and that further hearing in the matter would amount to an academic
exercise.
But Belgore held that the issues left
to be determined included whether the PDP acted legally in the appointment of
acting national officers, considering the provisions of Article 3 of the
party’s constitution, and whether the court could nullify the said appointments
and compel the party to conduct a fresh convention.
He maintained that it was immaterial
that the NWC members had resigned, noting that the court would still determine
the issues raised by the plaintiffs since their offices are still in existence.
The judge said, “This court
disagrees with the submissions of counsel to the defendant that the matter is
spent and amounts to an academic exercise. This case is alive and not
academic; it is not spent – a suit is academic if it has no practical
utilitarian value.
“Therefore, this court has
jurisdiction to continue hearing the suit.”
Tukur was joined as the second defendant
in the suit following an application in which he sought to be a party to
it. The PDP is the first defendant.
The court adjourned the matter to
July 29, 2013.
Tags
Politics