A Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice Evoh Chukwu has struck out the suit instituted by Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, a former Chairman of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), seeking his reinstatement as chairman of the party, months after he voluntarily resigned from office.
The suit seeking to unseat the national chairman of the PDP, Alhaji Adamu Mu’azu, was instituted by an aspirant to the House of Representatives from Adamawa State, Alhaji Aliyu Buba Gurin, with a counter claim filed by Tukur.
Tukur has however said the ruing would be appealed at the Court of Appeal.
The court had earlier dismissed the main suit filed by Aliyu Buba Gurin, seeking to sack Mu’azu as PDP national chairman.
Tukur, who is the second defendant in the main suit, had filed a counter-claim to the suit, praying the court to reinstate him as the party’s national chairman.
In the main suit, Gurin had prayed the court to sack Mu’azu and thus stop him from presiding over the forthcoming PDP convention.
Tukur, in his counter claim had also supported all the reliefs sought by the Gurin.
Joined by the plaintiff as defendants in the main suit are PDP, Tukur, Mu’azu and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as first to fourth respondents respectively.
However, ruling in the suit, the trial judge, Justice Chukwu, ruled that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter on ground that suit seeks the court’s interpretation of some sections of the constitution.
Chukwu held that when it appears that a political party has breached its internal provisions, the court could be invited to determine the level of complicity.
The court also held that he (plaintiff) lacked the locus standi to institute such suit on ground because the interest he canvassed was not different from that of every other member of the party.
According to Justice Chukwu, Gurin did not demonstrate any specific interest as to how the appointment of Mu’azu affected him since he did not have the intention of contesting for the post.
In dismissing Tukur’s counter claim, Justice Chukwu ruled that such application is strange to the nation’s jurisprudence and hence should not be allowed to stand.
According to the trial judge, “In interpreting statutes, ordinary meaning should be given. The defendants in this suit have complied with Section 47 of the party constitution by appointing Mu’azu from the same geographical region of the resigned chairman.
“The complaint of the plaintiff therefore goes to no issue. No specific interest was shown by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not shown any locus for bringing this suit. The injury he claimed was self-inflicted.
“I have studied the counter claim of the second defendant, his procedure is unknown to our jurisprudence. Having held that it is unknown to our law, it is accordingly dismissed.
“The application of party seeking to join has become an academic exercise and hence dismissed.
“The suit is thereby dismissed in its entirety, the counter claim is also dismissed. Plaintiff (is) to bear the cost of the action.”
In his reaction to the court’s ruling, the national legal adviser of the party, Victor Kwon, commended the judgement, saying the court had simply interpreted Section 47 (6) of PDP constitution.
“On the issue of discipline, it is a matter that the party will look at closely. Because, as much as the party wishes to open its arms to all members, discipline also has to be maintained within the party hierarchy, ” he however stated.
Counsel to the plaintiff, Rotimi Oguneso (SAN) had argued that the resignation of Tukur as PDP national chairman did not comply with the provision of Section 47(5) of the constitution of the party which stipulates that a 30-day notice be given to the National Executive Committee (NEC) by Tukur.
While contending that what gave him locus to institute the suit is his membership of the party, the plaintiff stressed that the appointment of Mu’azu as the new chairman did not follow the laid down provisions of the party constitution.
He then asked the court to set aside the appointment of Mu’azu.
On his part, Tukur in his counter claim through his counsel, Adamson Adeboro, had argued that he was forced to resign his post as the national chairman of the party as a condition for the seven PDP governors who defected to All Progressives Congress (APC) to come back to the party.
Maintaining that the NEC of the party has no power to appoint the national chairman, Tukur argued that the votes and proceedings of the party’s NEC held at Wadata House on January 15 and 20 which deliberated on his resignation as national chairman and appointment of Mu’azu as chairman are nullity.
Tukur added that even if he had submitted a letter of resignation on January 15 to the party, the letter did not comply with Section 47(5) of the party’s constitution, which requires that a 30-day prior notice should be given.
Counsel to PDP and Mu’azu, Solomon Umor (SAN) however opposed the application, asking the court to dismiss the suit on ground that the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute such suit.
Maintaining that the counter claim filed by the second defendant, Tukur is strange in law and cannot be accepted by court, the counsel said the plaintiff in the suit did not indicate any injury he has suffered or would suffer by reason of which the suit was brought.
According to Umar, the plaintiff has not pursued or exhaust the domestic or internal remedies available within the constitution of the party prior to the institution of the suit, maintaining that the subject matter is an internal affairs of the party, which the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.
He therefore prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
INEC, which is the fourth respondent in the suit, did not file any application as it only submitted that it would be neutral in the matter.
Report from TheWill.
No comments:
Post a Comment