A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja Monday upheld the November 1, 2014 ward congresses conducted by the Enugu State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The position of the court was made known by Justice A.F.A Ademola while ruling on a suit filed by the plaintiffs, Mr. Orji Chinenye Godwin, Chiefs Cletus C. Akalusi and Orji Orji on behalf of themselves and all delegates elected on November 1, 2014 ward congresses with the PDP national chairman and the national organising secretary as well as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.
The ruling came as Justice A.R Ozoemena of the Enugu State High Court on Monday withdrew from hearing the suit (No. E/439/2014) brought before him by a member of the party in the state, Chief Ikeje Asogwa, praying the court to uphold his purported appointment as the chairman of the Enugu State chapter of the PDP and also restrain the defendant, Acting Chairman of the Enugu State chapter of the PDP, from parading himself as the chairman of the state’s PDP.
The plaintiffs in the case heard by the Federal High Court, Abuja, had, among others, sought the declaration by the court that the list of delegates is the only valid list for the PDP delegates for primaries in Enugu State to the exclusion of all other lists. It also sought an order restraining the INEC from accepting any other list of delegates for the PDP primaries in the State.
Ruling in the suit, Justice Ademola held that a valid ward congress for the election of three-man delegate from the 260 Electoral Wards of Enugu State took place in Enugu State on November 1, 2014 and that the list before it remained the valid list of candidates returned at the election. On their part, the defendants had raised the issue of jurisdiction of the court, contending that the suit dealt with internal matters of the PDP.
The court however held that it had jurisdiction to hear the suit because the matters in contention were not simply the internal matters of the PDP. It also held that the delegates had been duly elected, have certain rights, and could therefore ask the court to protect their rights as delegates.
On the other hand, Justice Ozoemena could not proceed with ruling on Motion on Notice at the Enugu State High Court in the suit brought by Chief Asogwa challenging the claim to the chairmanship of the Enugu State chapter of the party by the State Deputy Chairman, Elder David Aja.
Justice Ozoemena had on November 14, 2014 taken full arguments on the Motion on Notice and adjourned the matter for November 24 for the ruling of the court.
However, when the case came up for ruling, the learned judge told the court that he had been receiving “threat calls and messages on his phones” and could therefore not go on with the case.
However, withdrawing himself completely from the case, Justice Ozoemena held that the file be returned to the Registrar of the Enugu State High Court for onward transmission to the Chief Judge of the Enugu State High Court, Justice Innocent Umezulike, for reassignment.
It could be recalled that the Judge had earlier issued an order restraining Ajah from parading himself as the Acting Chairman of the state chapter of the PDP following the resignation of the former Chairman, Vita Abba, pending the appointment of a new Chairman from the Enugu North Senatorial Zone where Vita Abba hailed from.
Ajah was subsequently served with a notice of consequences for disobedience to a Court Order, popularly known in legal circles as “form 48” , following his refusal to comply with the order. The process is a prelude to prosecution for contempt of court occasioned by a willful disobedience of an Order of Court.
Reacting to the development, counsel to the State PDP, Vin Ene and Tochukwu Maduka described the development as unfortunate, adding that it was “shocking and unwholesome” that a judge discharging his lawful duties could be subjected to such threats to his life as to compel him to decline further hearing in a suit before him.
The lawyers also pointed out that the court order was not in conflict with the later ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja presided over by Justice E.S Chukwu, which upheld Ajah’s claim of being the Acting Chairman of the party in Enugu State. According to them, the Abuja order was “merely declaratory and did not command Ajah to hold himself out as Acting Chairman, whereas the Enugu order positively commanded him not to hold himself out as Acting Chairman.”
They added that the Abuja order was also not binding on the Acting Chairman of the party, Chief Ikeje Asogwa as it was based on a matter that had been overtaken by events. According to him, the ruling of the Federal High Court was based on a suit filed by Ajah, challenging Asogwa’s appointment at a meeting of the State Executive Committee on the 25th of October, 2014.
They noted that the State Executive Committee had on its own nullified the appointment it made on that date but had at another meeting held on the 31st of October, 2014 again appointed Asogwa to the position in line with the provisions of the party’s constitution.
He said, “as you can see, this is a vain judgment because there are two different situations here with one overriding the other. Ikeje Asogwa was appointed as the Acting Chairman of the PDP in Enugu State on the 25th of October, Ajah went to court to challenge it but the SEC met again on the 31st of October and acting on the powers conferred on it by the party’s constitution, overruled the appointment it made on 25th of October but again appointed Asogwa as the Acting Chairman.
“ The ruling of the Federal High Court was based on the appointment made on the 25th of October, 2014. Asogwa is Acting Chairman of Enugu PDP on the account of the appointment made on the 31st of October and not that of the 25th October, 2014 in respect of which Ajah had sued. That suit has been overtaken by events. The appointment made on the 31st of October, therefore, remains valid and it is worthy of note that there is no process whatsoever before any court in Nigeria challenging it, not to talk of any court order having been issued against it”.
The PDP lawyers also disclosed that they had since appealed the ruling of the Federal High Court and also filed a motion for stay of execution of the order.
