From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has set aside a judgment of Federal High Court which ordered the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to allow the participation of 381 ad hoc delegates in the February 22 primary that produced Asue Ighodalo as the candidate of the party in the September 21 governorship election in Edo State.
A three-member panel of the appellate court set aside the judgment that was delivered by Inyang Ekwo on July 4, on the grounds that his court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the aggrieved delegates who have legal rights to initiate the suit.
Delivering judgment in the appeal, yesterday, the three-member panel agreed with the submissions of the PDP and allowed the appeal.
The appellate court, in the judgment, said the first to third respondents do not have the wherewithal to challenge the PDP over the primary, since they were never aspirants seeking political office.
It was the decision of the court that the issue of primary is an internal affairs of a political party which is outside the jurisdiction of the court.
According to the judgment, “it is only an aspirant that can challenge the primary of a political party.”
The appellate court, while holding that primary is an internal affair of any political party, pointed out that the grievances of the plaintiffs cannot be entertained by any court, as they are not contesting political office but selected to only participate in the selection of a candidate for the party.
Three aggrieved ad hoc delegates, including Kelvin Mohammed, Gabriel Okoduwa and Ederaho Osagie, had sued the PDP on behalf of themselves and 378 other delegates over their exclusion in the February 22 primary that produced Ighodalo as the standard-bearer of the PDP in the forthcoming election in Edo State.
They had asked the court to determine among others whether their exclusion from the said primary was not in breach of the party’s constitution.
Besides, they urged the court to order the PDP to allow their participation in the poll if the questions raised for determination were in their favour.
Delivering judgment in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/165/2024, Ekwo faulted the exclusion of the plaintiffs and 378 other delegates in the February 22 primary for the selection of the PDP’s candidate in the forthcoming governorship election in Edo State, and subsequently ordered their inclusion in the primary.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of Ekwo, the PDP approached the appellate court, with a 25-ground appeal, among which are that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case of the plaintiffs because they are not aspirants who are clothed by law to challenge such primary.
In another judgment, the appellate court affirmed the nomination of Ighodalo as PDP candidate.
A three-member panel of the appellate court affirmed Ighodalo’s nomination shortly after dismissing the appeal filed by an aspirant, Anselm Ojezua, for being incompetent and lacking in merit.
Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, had, on June 26, dismissed Ojezua’s suit challenging the return of Ighodalo as winner of the February 22 primary of the PDP.
Ojezua had prayed the court to nullify Ighodalo’s nomination on grounds of irregularities and manipulation of the delegates’ list used for the conduct of the primary.
However, Egwuatu, in the judgment, held that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case of the plaintiff because he did not exhaust the internal mechanism of the PDP before rushing to court.
He subsequently struck out the suit and declined to go into the merit.
Dissatisfied, Ojezua appealed the judgment on the grounds that the trial court was wrong in holding that his suit was premature.
He added that Egwuatu also erred in law by refusing to proceed with the merit of his case after its dismissal.
The appellant, therefore, prayed the court to set aside the judgment of the trial court and invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Rules to go into the merit of the case.
However, a three-member panel of the appellate court, in a judgment delivered by Peter Obiorah, held that the judgment of the trial court was ‘spot on’ and as such no reason whatsoever to deviate from it.
According to the appellate court, since conditions precedent were not fulfilled by the plaintiff, the trial court was right to decline jurisdiction.
Obiorah held that not using the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the PDP to the limit, was fatal to the case of the appellant.
The appellate court noted that the plaintiff had written some petitions to the chairman of the PDP three-man ward panel as well as the chairman of the Edo State PDP primary panel.
He added wherein he had alleged manipulation of the delegates’ list and cast aspersions on the process of the primary, he did not say anywhere that he made any complaint about the conduct of the February 22 primary that produced Ighodalo as candidate.
Obiorah added that Ojezua, in spite of being aware of the PDP’s electoral appeal panel, did not lodge any complaint about the conduct of the primary there before rushing to court.
Besides, the appellate court faulted the appellant for seeking to separate the event leading to the primary and the primary itself, noting that the alleged manipulation of delegate list cannot stand alone.
The appellate court further pointed out that where there are laid down rules it is not only bidding on political parties but also their members.
He added that candidates just as political parties are expected to abide by their own constitution and guidelines.
“I resolve this issue against the appellant and in favour of the respondents,” Obiorah held, adding that the trial court was right in striking out the case for want of jurisdiction.
The appellate court faulted the trial judge for refusing to proceed with the merit of the case. It, however, held that invoking the Court of Appeal Rules to go into the merit of the case would be of no use having agreed that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
“Since the lower court has no jurisdiction, there is nothing for this court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Rules. I cannot fault the decision of the lower court, accordingly, I found no merit in this appeal, the only order to make is an order dismissing the appeal and I so do, the judgment of the lower court dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction is hereby affirmed,” Obiorah said.