Godwin Tsa, Abuja
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting at Apo division has struck out the name of the Buhari Campaign Organisation (BCO) from the N40 million libel suit filed by the President Muhammad Buhari against former vice president and the presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.
Justice Binta Mohammed held that the organisation (BCO) is not known to law.
The judge agreed with the submissions made by the counsel to Atiku, Mr. Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), that because the organisation is not a juristic person, it cannot sue or be sued.
In the libel suit marked FCT/HC/CV/ 804/2019, President Buhari and his campaign organization, (BCO), accused Atiku and his aide, Mr. Phrank Shaibu, of making several defamatory statements in the media, to the effect that Buhari used his position as the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and head of the government, to fraudulently acquire two private companies, Keystones Bank Plc and 9Mobile Communication Ltd for himself, his family members, and friends.
The plaintiffs told the court that Atiku and his aide falsely claimed that President Buhari acquired the said companies using his influence and the control he has over the head of parastatals or organisations that are connected with activities of the companies.
The BCO maintained that the unverified and false allegations it said were sponsored by Atiku, “caused grave pain, embarrassment” to President Buhari whose integrity it said was called to question.
However, hearing in the suit suffered some major setbacks following the striking out of the name of BCO as a co-plaintiff as well as a motion by the plaintiff to replace the name of the campaign organisation with that of Mallam Gidado Ibrahim, as the 2nd defendant.
The plaintiff’s motion further sought for leave of court to amend the writ of summons.
Atiku had in his motion on notice marked M/3117/19, filed by his counsel, Ume, sought for an order striking out the 2nd plaintiff/ respondents as a party to the suit on the grounds that it is not a juristic person that can sue or be sued in its name.
The motion dated February 11, 2019, and brought pursuant to order 13 rule 19(1) and order 43 rule 1, of the FCT High Court (civil procedure), rules further urged to the court to hold that the 2nd Plaintiff (BCO) is improperly joined as a party in the action.
Ume who moved the motion argued that for the suit to be properly constituted so as to vest jurisdiction on the court, parties must be juristic persons known to law and competent.
The second motion was filed by the plaintiff who sought an order for the leave of court to amend the writ of summons, statement of claim and file witness deposition on oath from the amended process.
It also asked for an order for leave of court to join Mallam Gidado Ibrahim as 2nd Plaintiff in this suit; an order of the court striking out the 2nd Plaintiff (BCO) from the suit and an order of court deeming the amended originating processes) writ of summons, statement of claim and witness deposition on oath filed and all other processes and annextures as properly filed and served.
The motion could not be heard following an objection by Atiku’s counsel challenging its competence.
Ume had challenged the motion on the grounds that it had no motion number assigned to it as required by the rules of the FCT High Court.
Meanwhile, Atiku, in a counter-claim he filed through his counsel, Mr. Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, challenged the competence of the suit, insisting that it was highly frivolous.
Atiku, consequently asked the court to compel President Buhari to pay him damages in the aggregate sum of N2billion, as well as tender a public apology to him, for sponsoring frivolous suits against him.
He applied for an order mandating that the N2billion damages to be paid by both President Buhari and the BCO, should be sent to all the camps of Internally Displaced People, IDPs, across the country and for equipment of libraries and Information Technology equipment for all state universities in Nigeria.
In addition, Atiku, sought for an order, “mandating President Buhari and his agents including security operatives and officers to abide by the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers entrenched in the constitution and should not intervene in the forthcoming elections.”
In a 56-paragraphed witness statement on oath deposed to by one Abraham Udoh, the PDP presidential flag-bearer told the court that President Buhari had failed Nigerians by his inability as a president, to stop ruthless and wanton killings across the country. He said the killings and destructions had rendered citizens, farmers, women and children homeless without food or basic amenities of life, as well as led to the emergence of various IDP camps in the country. He said: “That under the present administration, there are over 108, 000 Internally Displaced Persons grappling with a litany of infections and hunger.”
“In Taraba State the number of IDPs in the various camps are Mayo Dassa (402 IDPs); Gullong (1259), ATC Kofai (968), Abuja I and II (357), Dorowa/Magami/Malam Joda(579), Sabon Gari (482), Malum (872), Murtai/Yaukani/Yelwa(554), Mile six (74), Nyabukaka/Tutan Kurma/Kasa(148) and Nukkai (30).