The court, in a ruling by Justice Okon Abang, held that every action the Committee has taken since it emerged through a convention the party purportedly held in Port Harcourt on May 21, amounted to nullity.
“Parties have
an uncompromising duty to obey court order until it is set aside.
The Lagos
Division made orders on May 12 and 20, forbidding the PDP from removing the
Sheriff-led Caretaker Committee. That order is still subsisting.
“Having regard to the order of the court,
PDP had no lawful authority to hold the convention that led to the emergence of
the Markafi-led Committee.
“The
convention was unlawfully held and the Caretaker Committee was unlawfully and
illegally appointed and could not take any legal decision for the PDP in view
of the subsisting order of the Lagos Division of this court.
“Consequently, any action taken by the
Markafi-led Committee, including the purported mandate for legal representation
in this matter is hereby declared illegal.
“If the Markafi-led Caretaker Committee, as apostles of impunity, missed
their way to the Port Harcourt division of this court, that court could not
have conveniently assumed jurisdiction to set aside the earlier decision of the
Lagos Division.
“I hold that the Port
Harcourt division of this court cannot make an order to neutralise the potency
of the Lagos Division of this court dated 12 and 20 May“.
Justice Abang said he would have voided the
judgment of the Port Harcourt Division for being a nullity, assuming there was
an application to that effect. He
warned politicians not to cause disaffection among judges of the High Court,
saying “the culture of impunity must stop in this country”. According to the court, “Ali Modu Sheriff is
the National Chairman of the PDP. Any decision not taken by the Sheriff-led
Committee is not binding on the PDP”.
The ruling came on a day two Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, clashed
in court over the suit seeking to stop the National Convention of the party
billed to hold in Port Harcourt on August 17.
The SANs exchanged heated words over who was duly briefed to represent
PDP in the suit which the Ali Modu Sheriff-led faction of the party lodged
before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Whereas one of the senior lawyers, Mr. Ferdinand Obi, SAN, told the
court that he was briefed by the Caretaker Committee of the party led by
Senator Ahmed Makarfi, his colleague, Mr. Olagoke Fakunle, SAN, maintained that
he has the mandate of the “real PDP leadership” to appear in the matter.
Fakunle’s submission infuriated Obi who drew
attention of the court to the fact that its Port Harcourt Division had on July
4, sacked Sheriff from office as PDP chairman.
Obi argued that it was ethically wrong for the plaintiffs, led by
Sheriff, to contract Fakunle to represent the PDP which they also sued as the
2nd respondent before the court.
“I say
with the greatest respect that what is happening before this court today is
unfortunate. It is on record that processes for the PDP in this matter was
signed by one Bashir Maidugu who was the erstwhile Deputy National Legal
Adviser of the party and the 5th plaintiff in this action.
“It is scandalous for a plaintiff to sue a
defendant and arrange representation for him. In law, a man cannot be both
plaintiff and defendant in the same matter”, he argued. Obi tendered in evidence, the judgment of
Justice A. M. Liman of the high court in Port Harcourt in suit No.
FHC/PH/CS/524/2016, which he said settled issue of who should receive legal
processes or engage a lawyer on behalf of the PDP.
“If all the plaintiffs were actually in
office as national officers of the PDP, there will be no basis for them filing
this suit. If there is a dispute between them and the PDP, then they should
allow the real PDP they are quarrelling with, to defend its action.
“We are duly appointed by the PDP that was
recognised in the judgement by Justice Liman, which is the Markafi-led group”,
Obi submitted.
He said that he had on
June 27, filed two separate applications on behalf of the PDP, asking the court
to disqualify itself from handling Sheriff’s suit on the basis that the matter
was already decided by the court in Port Harcourt. However, Fakunle, SAN, urged the court to
not only ignore Obi’s submissions, but also order him to immediately withdraw
his appearance for the party.
“My lord,
it is not in contention that PDP briefed us and we accordingly filed processes
on its behalf in this matter. “My
learned colleague here admitted that the 5th defendant who is the National
Deputy Legal Adviser of the party did not brief him. “The judgement of the court in Port Harcourt
said absolutely nothing about legal representation for the PDP. That decision
is already subject of appeal.
“Moreover, no judge of a coordinate jurisdiction has the power to
set-aside or vary the order this court validly made on June 30 which recognised
us.
“I urge the court to hold that we
are counsel for the PDP and that my learned brother should cease from appearing
in this matter forthwith”. On his part,
counsel to the plaintiffs, Chief Niyi Akintola, SAN, prayed the court to
firstly determine who between the two senior lawyers has a valid mandate to
represent the PDP.
Akintola earlier
prayed the court to consider the urgency of the matter and grant an injunction
stopping the party from going ahead with its planned national convention,
pending the determination of the substantive suit. “What we are asking for is an injunction and
our application is ripe for hearing. We urge my lord to because of the urgency
nature of this case and the circumstances surrounding the matter, hear this
application and grant our request.
“I urge my lord to hear us out. This matter is very crucial. They want to hold a convention which we are seeking to stop”, Akintola pleaded. He told the court that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, which is the 1st defendant in the matter, was duly served with the relevant court processeson Monday. INEC lawyer, Mr. Alhassan Umar, however told the court that the plaintiffs were yet to serve it with all the relevant processes. In his ruling, Justice Abang refused to recognise Obi, SAN, as counsel for PDP in the matter, declaring the two application he filed against hearing of the suit as incompetent. Specifically, Sheriff and eight others had approached the court, praying it to abort the proposed national convention of the party. Other plaintiffs behind the suit are Prof.
Wale Oladapo (National
Secretary); Dennis Alonge-Niyi (Deputy National Youth Leader); Alhaji Bashir
Maidugu (Deputy National Legal Adviser); Mrs. Hanatu Ulam (Deputy National
Women Leader); Alhaji Lawal Dutsima Anchi (Deputy National Auditor); Chief Okey
Nnadozie (Deputy National Organising Secretary) and Chief Olisa Metuh (National
Publicity Secretary).
The plaintiffs
are contending that allowing the Makarfi-led faction to proceed with the
convention would affect the ‘Res’ of the substantive suit they filed on July 4,
wherein they are insisting that their tenure in office ought to expire in
2018. The plaintiffs said they filed
the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/464/2016, for themselves and on behalf of the
Executive Committee/National Working Committee of the PDP.
Justice Okon Abang had earlier in the
proceeding, posed questions which he said the Markafi-led faction should answer
to enable the court to determine the issue of legal representation for the
party. Tracing the history of the case,
Justice Abang noted that the Lagos division of the high court had on May 12,
made an order restraining PDP from conducting any election into offices of its
National Chairman, Secretary and Auditor, occupied by 1st, 2nd and 3rd
plaintiffs led by Sheriff.
He said the
court also barred INEC from monitoring or recognising candidates that emerge
from any such election. “That order is
still subsisting and has not been vacated. Yet again, on May 20, the court made
another order, directing INEC and PDP to maintain status quo on issue relating
to position of the plaintiffs, pending determination of the suit before
it.
“Later in the same month, PDP held
a convention that removed these plaintiffs and set up a Caretaker Committee
that led to the emergence of Markafi who briefed you (Obi) to appear in this
matter.
“The question is, does the Port
Harcourt division had jurisdiction to entertain proceedings that led to various
orders made by it and the judgement delivered on July 4, which neutralised the
potency of the previous over by the Lagos Division, with the judges having
coordinate jurisdiction? “That was
notwithstanding the fact that under section 249 of the constitution, the Federal
High Court is one.
“This is having
regards to established principle of law that where an order which ought to have
been made, is made in error, a court of coordinate jurisdiction has the power
to set it aside”, the Judge queried.
Obi’s plea for an adjournment to enable him respond to the questions he
said were “germane and weighty”, was refused by the court.
While responding to the questions, Obi,
maintained that Justice Abang lacked the jurisdiction to evaluate and make
findings on the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction. He argued that all the parties are already
before the appellate court over the judgment.
“We submit that this court should avoid a situation whereby it will
foist on the court of appeal a situation of hopelessness or render nugatory,
whatever judgment that will be eventually delivered by the appellate
court.
“This is why the Chief Judge of
this court, on July 8, issued a circular to all the judges handling PDP
leadership tussle cases to stop further action on the matters pending the
outcome of the appeals before the Court of Appeal”, he added.
Justice Abang however clarified that the CJ
later issued another circular on July 23, cancelling the previous one dated
July 8.
Vanguardngr
0 Comments