From Jude Owuamanam, Jos
Hon Pam Gyang Davou was the Organizing Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) under whom the party repeated the congress that produced the state exco. He expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will not toe the argument of the Appeal Court.
You were the organizing Secretary of the PDP at the time the whole brouhaha of structure or no structure started. Can you take us through the synopsis of the problem that led the party to where it is now?
You just said that I was the state organizing secretary. To me, it was a great privilege to have served in that position. The situation that led to the formation of that caretaker committee was that there was a congress and some people went to court that they were not satisfied with that congress. And justice Istifanus Gang of the Plateau State High court said that the PDP should go back and repeat that congress. And in compliance with that order, the PDP at the national headquarters dissolved the state exco and in its place set up a caretaker committee. I remember very well that my appointment letter said that we were to serve for only 90 days during which we were to organize a congress and then quit the scene. We spent 90 days and we were not able to organize the congress and then the national headquarters extended our tenure for another 40 days. Now it was during these 40 days that we organized another congress. And I tell you that during the 90 plus 40 days – well we did not spend the 40 days entirely, I remember that our chairman, Senator Tunde Ogbeha, came to this state, rallied all the elders and leaders of the PDP together. We toured the 17 local government areas of Plateau State, visited all the elders and leaders of the party at the local government. We visited elders in their homes and we had lengthy discussions on the need for the party to come together as a family. I tell you that Senator Ogbeha succeeded because if I remember very well the last meeting the elders held was at Three Angels Hotel, Rayfied and the late Senator Mantu was here, Gen. Jeremiah Useni was there. D. T Sango was there. Former governors Jonah Jang, Sir Fidelis Tapgun were there. Former Minister M. I Azi was there. In fact, all the elders were there. And I remember that after the meeting, they were all laughing. They ate lunch together and there was a group photograph. Little wonder with all the leg work that the caretaker committee did, the congress was a success. Because on the day of that congress, all these elders I mentioned were in the hall. They sat at the high table. I remember that just a few of them went home, but they came back in the morning. Somebody like J. T. Useni went home and came back in the morning. All of them were seated on that table when the results were announced. Talking about the congress, I will quickly tell you that that congress had a delegate list of 2111 and in attendance we had over 1800. And if you calculate it very well, it is more than two-thirds and the PDP constitution clearly said that you need at least two-thirds of the delegates list to hold a valid congress. So that congress met more than two-thirds of the quorum. So that congress was validly held and it succeeded because at the end of the day, we had three contestants – the present chairman of PDP, Hon. Chris Hassan, former member House of Representatives, Hon. Bitrus Kaze, and Ngo Monica Gwom; three of them were the contestants for the position of the chairman, outside of contestants for other positions. And in the morning, when the results were announced, Hon Bitrus Kaze, who came a distant second, gave a speech conceding defeat to Chris Hassan and actually hugged him. So for me as the former organizing secretary, I hear and see events as they unfold at the tribunal and Appeal court and I was shocked to my marrow what’s actually happening. I am truly marveled for lack of a better word.
With all these that you have said as a former organizing secretary, were all these information provided to the court, especially the Appeal Court before it arrived at its verdict?
Well let me shock you. The case of APC at the tribunal was that PDP did not hold a repeat congress as ordered by the court. That was the case of APC at the tribunal. The PDP brought ample evidence to the court to the effect that the second congress as ordered by the court was held. To show that there was a congress, INEC that slept at the congress, three people from INEC, slept there. They did not leave that place till morning, except probably to go out and ease themselves by bringing their report. The report of INEC that was attached to the court processes showed that the PDP held a congress. The PDP did not stop there. They played a video recording of the congress to the court. So there was ample evidence that a congress held at the tribunal level. But one thing that shocked me as a lawyer and I need to say this, is the fact that after the tribunal, when the case went to the court of Appeal, the pleadings of APC changed midway and that’s a very serious anomaly in the judicial process. Because at the tribunal, they said PDP did not hold a congress but when they went to the Court of Appeal, they were now questioning the quality of the congress. Even they in their submission said yes we held congress, but said that did not happen. So midway during legal proceedings, pleadings changed. What shocked me as a lawyer is the fact that the judges at the Court of Appeal descended into the arena of conflict and even helped the APC to shape their pleadings by coming to the conclusions that 12 local governments of Plateau did not participate in the said repeat congress. So you’re now agreeing that there was a congress, but you are now saying that 12 local governments did not participate. Well I put it to you that that is a blatant lie. And why is it a lie, the PDP constitution, Section 25 to be specific, provides for the various organs of the PDP that will participate in a congress and if you look at that provision, it provides for three elected ad hoc delegates from every ward. In Plateau, we have 207 wards. So every ward of Plateau produced three ad hoc delegates. Outside of that, it provides that five principal officers of the ward exco of PDP in that ward – the chairman, the vice chairman, the secretary, the youth leader and the woman leader – are automatic delegates to that congress. So outside of three elected delegates, we have five exco members of every ward exco partaking in that congress. So that tells you that every ward has eight delegates to that congress; outside of that, there is a provision for every member you had ever worked as a working committee member as a delegate. Every local government elected one national delegate to that congress. One physically-challenged person is elected from every local government to that congress. You have former members and principal members of the House of assembly as automatic delegates. Of course, if you’re a former governor, former this and former that as automatic delegates to the congress; so how come that 12 local governments did not participate and a judge of the Court of Appeal descended into this matter and made this pronouncement. Something is definitely wrong. In fact, as far as I am concerned, I am calling on the NJC to investigate this matter because it’s not funny. We have known over the years that the court does not act as Father Christmas. If you don’t ask for anything, the court will not give you. For a judge to descend into this conflict and to even make a pronouncement that 12 local government areas did not participate in the congress is befuddling. How did he come to that conclusion?
This is exactly what I want to ask, did the APC tell the court that 12 local government areas did not participate, or did the court arrive at the conclusion by itself that 12 local government areas did not participate in that congress?
When APC filed their process at the tribunal level, there was nothing like that if you understand me very well. APC said that PDP did not hold congress, so where and how did we now transit from saying that PDP did not hold a congress to the fact that 12 local government areas did not participate in the congress. So how was the process changed? Where did it change? Is it allowed in law?
They said that there was substantial non-compliance
I will ask, who measures compliance. I have just told you the provisions of the PDP constitution and the people that should constitute a congress and I have told you the number of people that participated in that congress. Over 1800 out of 2111 and the provision is that two-thirds is what you need for a quorum to be formed. So how can you say that in a congress that constituted over 1800 people, the rules were not complied with. Where is the substantial non-compliance? You did not even stop as non-compliance but you said substantial non-compliance. So who measures non-compliance? How did you ensure the non-compliance because on the day of that congress the court was not there but the congress was held. The order by Justice Gang was for the PDP to hold another congress and PDP held a repeat congress.
After that repeat congress, which you described as successful and that even the contestants hugged themselves, did any member of PDP or any of the contestants challenge the outcome in court because that could have formed the nucleus of AP argument that the congress was not validly held?
Thank you for asking me that question because that’s another big wonder of the whole saga. Because there was no member of PDP that went to court to challenge the outcome of that congress. Till date a member of the PDP has gone to court to challenge the outcome of that congress. And I can tell you that no member went to court. And I can tell you quickly that somebody from Langtang North went to court as a result of the House Assembly primaries that were held because he had an ambition to go to the assembly. After losing, he showed that he was a bad loser because he went to challenge the primary election and the validity of the PDP congress. And I can tell you, Justice Agishi of the Federal High Court in that case held that the PDP held a valid congress. He was not satisfied. He went to the Court of Appeal, again the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Federal High court. And that’s what kept on baffling me because as I have said severally that the federal high court and the Court of Appeal were not under any hurry to adjudicate on that matter quite unlike tribunals that are sui generis; they have a lifetime, but without pressure, the FHC and the Court of Appeal held that the PDP held a valid congress. And how can a tribunal sitting here in Jos deviate from the ruling of the Appeal Court. And that judgment was part of the process we filed in court. But the tribunal here in Jos closed its eyes to the judgment of the Appeal Court, which in itself is also an anomaly.
In setting up the appellate court for the Jos case, only one court adjudicated on all the cases, which was not so in other states. Why was this so, knowing that a daughter of the state is the president of the court of Appeal?
I wouldn’t know why but sitting here in the tribunal, it was not one panel. Two panels handled the cases, but I find it strange that going upstairs at the Court of Appeal, it was one panel. I find it strange that only one panel tried all the issues in Plateau State. It is very strange. I can tell you that Plateau was the only state that was given that treatment. And this is another issue for the NJC to investigate.
People are saying that the problems in the PDP are those of its creation. That the inability of the elders to reconcile their differences had brought the party to where it is today. Do you agree?
Probably we can say yes and probably not. But assuming but not conceding to the fact that that is responsible for the problems we are having, if it is possible that there are intra-party issues, then it is a family matter. I put it to you that PDP on the Plateau is more peaceful than the APC. All of us in the PDP and even people in APC know that there was no congress in the APC. As of today that I am talking, there is someone challenging the legality of the APC chairman on the Plateau because he (the APC chairman) is saying that he was the only one that bought form. Present APC chairman, Rufus Bature, did not buy a form for election as chairman. He was imposed on the party and it did not even stop there because even in the governorship primaries, we knew what happened. Other aspirants walked away during the APC primaries. But you know that as a party, the PDP was not interested in what happened in APC. It’s not our business because it’s their issue, it is a family matter. So you find some of these things very strange and you’re tempted to ask why.
You said earlier that you visited all the elders in the course of your preparation for the congress but we heard one of the elders saying that the PDP did not conduct any congress. Why this opposing view from someone who is not only an elder but a member of PDP board of trustees?
Ambassador Fidelis Tapgun is somebody who is much older than me and I don’t want to join issues with him. But I must say this, I am truly disappointed. Why am I disappointed? I was in his house with the caretaker committee chairman and some of the members. We visited His Excellency, Ambassador Tapgun in his house and even made dinner for us and we discussed, in fact we held two discussions. That day, there was a meeting with elders at Three Angels, Ambassador Tapgun was there. You see if as an elder, you have private issues, you don’t come to the public space and ventilate those issues. Tapgun is a former governor, Senator Jang is a former governor. I believe that at their level, they can sort their issues, but we the party faithful, you cannot lie to us. And you’re an elder and to cap it all, you’re a former governor, a former minister, a former ambassador. Then as younger people, how do we see you?
Given all these you have said, as a lawyer, if at the end of the day, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the PDP had no structure, would you be disappointed with your colleagues?
Let me be honest with you, I don’t see the Supreme Court towing the line of the Appeal Court. Do you know why? It is because the Supreme Court had in a plethora of cases of issues like this said that you don’t meddle in the private matters of another political party. Even in the recent case between President Bola Tinubu and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, the Supreme Court described the PDP as a meddlesome interloper. It will be like somebody standing on the fence and peeping into his neighbour’s house. The Supreme Court cannot go back on its words. These issues are very straightforward. They are pre-election matters. Why the Appeal Court went the way it did, I don’t know. Why the Appeal Court descended into the arena of conflicts and took a position with one of the parties, honestly as a lawyer, I cannot explain. But I can tell you in clear terms, I do not see the Supreme Court going the way of the Appeal court because if it does, it would mean that legal practice in Nigeria has been shredded into tatters.