Godwin Tsa, Abuja
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja, sitting in Apo, has struck out the name, Buhari Capmaign Organization (BCO), from the N40 million libel suit filed by President Muhammad Buhari against the former vice president and presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.
Justice Binta Mohammed held that the organisation, BCO, is not known to law.
The judge agreed with submissions made by counsel to Atiku, Mr. Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), that not being a juristic person, it cannot sue or be sued.
In the libel suit marked FCT/HC/CV/ 804/2019, President Buhari and his campaign organisation, 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 was sponsored by Atiku, “caused grave pain, and embarrassment,” to President Buhari, whose integrity it said was called to question.
However, hearing in the suit suffered some major setbacks yesterday, 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 second 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 second plaintiff/ respondents as a party to the suit on the ground that it is not a juristic person that can sue or be sued in his 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 court to hold that the second 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 second plaintiff in this suit; an order of the court striking out the second plaintiff, BCO, from the suit, and an order of court demanding the amended originating processes, writ of summons, statement of claim and witness deposition on oath filed and all other processes and annexure as properly filed and served.
The motion could not be heard following an objection by Atiku’s counsel challenging its competence.