Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Abuja division of the Federal High Court (FHC) has extended the lifespan of its December 15 order stopping the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from taking any action against the 26 Rivers House of Assembly members who defected to All Progressives Congress (APC).
Donatus Okorowo extended the order following an application by counsel for the affected lawmakers, Steve Adehi, who appeared for the Rivers House of Assembly.
Although the application for the extension was opposed by PDP counsel, Adeyemi Ajibade, Okorowo agreed that based on Order 26, Rule 10 of the FHC, the court had the discretionary power to grant the plea in the interest of justice.
The judge held that he was persuaded by the reasons given by Adehi that granting the order would be better in the interest of justice.
Okorowo, who adjourned the matter until January 24 for hearing of the applications, said: “Application for the extension of the order of the lifespan of the ex parte order pending the hearing and determination of motion on notice is hereby granted.”
Okorowo had, on December 15, granted the ex parte motion filed by the 26 lawmakers who dumped PDP for APC.
The court restrained INEC from conducting fresh elections to fill the seats of the 26 Assembly members.
It also restrained INEC, PDP, and the House of Assembly from declaring their seats vacant and withdrawing their respective certificate of returns pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
The plaintiffs had, in the motion ex parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1681/2023/, dated and filed on December 13 2023, sued INEC, PDP, the Assembly, clerk of the Assembly, inspector general of police and the department of state service as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.
Upon resumed hearing, yesterday, plaintiffs’ counsel, Adehi, said he had a motion on notice which originally was meant for hearing, yesterday.
Adehi, however, sought an adjournment because Lukman Fagbemi, had withdrawn his appearance and a new counsel had entered an appearance in the matter for the 3rd defendant (Assembly) and because the 2nd defendant (PDP) had just served on them their response, yesterday.
“In any case, I ask that the matter be further adjourned to enable us to serve the 3rd and 4th defendants (assembly and clerk) and to also enable us to reply on points of law to the process served on us by the counsel to the 2nd defendant,” he said.
Then, K.C.O. Njemanze, told the court that he had the instruction of the 3rd defendant (Assembly) to take over the brief with the original letter of instruction backing this after the withdrawal of the earlier counsel, Fagbemi. He equally said that a memorandum of appearance had already been filed.
A lawyer from Fagbemi’s chamber confirmed to the court that he (Fagbemi) had withdrawn from the suit.
The PDP’s lawyer, Ajibade, who is also the national legal adviser of the party, said he had filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to handle the suit and the competence of the suit itself.
He, therefore, prayed the court for an order discharging the December 15 interim order granted by the court.
Ajibade said the plaintiffs had responded to their preliminary objection but had yet to respond to their second application, which was a motion seeking the court’s order to discharge the interim order.
He, however, aligned himself with the application for adjournment by Adehi and Njemanze given Fagbemi’s withdrawal from the suit as reason.
He said this would also enable him to sort out their processes which had earlier been served on Fagbemi.
Njemanze told the court that he was yet to be served with the processes filed by the PDP to enable them to respond to the same.
Besides, he said he intends to react to the processes filed by the plaintiffs. He said though there had been moves to resolve the dispute politically with the involvement of President Bola Tinubu, he would need to get the disposition of his client to the development.
“Without prejudice to the information by my learned friend this morning (yesterday) about a political solution brokered by Mr. President, I need to get my client’s reaction to this and then report back to this court.
“In the circumstance, we pray for an adjournment to enable me to file my processes,” he said.
The 4th defendant (clerk of the Assembly)’s counsel, Ferdinand Orbih, notified the court that his client was yet to be served with any process in the matter.
“But as obedient servants and ministers in the temple of justice, we appeared this morning (yesterday) with firm instruction from the 4th defendant,” he said.
Orbih said he would consult with the 4th defendant to know which path to toe.
He said if he agreed with the plaintiffs’ application but the PDP insisted on going on with the matter, the case would still be alive before the court.
“However, we are not opposed to the plaintiffs’ call for adjournment as the consultation continues,” he said.
Adehi, who said the court should consider all the applications for adjournment, prayed to the court for an order extending the lifespan of the December 15 interim order pending when the matter is resolved.
But Ajibade opposed Adehi’s application, reminding the court of their motion seeking to vacate the order.
He argued that issues had already been joined in the case by responding to the plaintiffs’ interlocutory injunction and that their counter-affidavit had also been served.
Responding, Njemanze, who appeared for the Assembly, disagreed with Ajibade.
Meanwhile, PDP has insisted that the 26 defectors were no longer members of the state legislature.
Ajibade said though President Tinubu might have intervened in the dispute between Governor Fubara and the Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike, the party stood on what the constitution says on defection.
“PDP, as a party, is standing on the side of the constitution of the country. It is not about issues of an agreement but by the constitution we all sworn to uphold.
“The governor himself swore to uphold the constitution likewise the president. I am not against the president, calling for the resolution of the matter. He is the chief security officer of this country and he has every right to intervene in the issue.
“Besides that, we, as a political party, the PDP own those seats and certainly we are interested in those seats. Whatever the governor is doing in this matter that concerns whether resolution on the issue, no resolution has been brought to Wadata Plaza on this matter. But as a political party, we cannot leave the seats and the votes willingly given to the party by people of Rivers State,” he said
According to the senior lawyer, aside from that, the constitution of the country is very clear; Section 109 (1g) is clear as to issues of detection.
He said the affected lawmakers had not denied that they had not defected.
“Even if you pick the writ of summon that was filed before this court, they said they actually defected.
“So, they are only stating while they defected, that they have the right to defect based on the reasons given by them.
“It is not an issue as to whether there was a defection or not and we cannot fold our hands. So, we have to go to recover our seats,” he said.
Ajibade, who said they had challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit, said if the court ruled that it had jurisdiction, the PDP would appeal it.
“If at the end of the day, if this court decides to maintain and insists it has jurisdiction, then we will do the needful. We will study the ruling and if possible, we have higher court,” he said.
On what transpired in court, he said though the case was adjourned for hearing of interlocutory injunction, the PDP filed an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter
He said though he opposed the plaintiffs’ application for the extension of the ex parte order earlier granted by the court on December 15, he said it was unfortunate that other defendants who were supposed to take side with them did not oppose it, and the court granted the request.
“The court said based on the balance of probabilities, it decided to extend the order.
“The case has been adjourned to January 24, 2024, and on that day, our application challenging the jurisdiction of this court will be taken to see whether this court has jurisdiction on the matter.
“And we equally have an application, asking the court to set aside the earlier ex parte order granted by the court for lack of jurisdiction,” he said.
