THE Federal High Court, Abuja Division Wednesday reserved judgment in an action initiated by an aspirant to the House of Representatives in Adamawa State, ‎Aliyu Abuba Gurin, seeking to unseat the national chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Adamu Mu’azu and to stop the party national convention.
Named, as first to fourth defendants in the case are the PDP, Bamanga Tukur, Mu’azu and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).‎

When the case came up, counsel to the plaintiff’s, Rotimi Oguneso, (SAN) submitted that the resignation of Alhaji Bamanga Tukur as national chairman “did not comply with the provision of Section 47(5) of the constitution of the party” which provides that a 30-day notice be given to the National Executive Committee (NEC) by the resigning chairman.‎

Oguneso also contended that the appointment of Mu’azu as the new chairman did not follow the laid down provisions of the party’s constitution.

The plaintiff further submitted that what gave him locus to institute the suit was his membership of the party.

He prayed the court to set aside the appointment of Mu’azu.

However, the second defendant in the matter (Tukur) filed a counter claim supporting all the claims of the ‎plaintiff.

In his counter claim, Tukur argued that he was forced to resign his post as the national chairman of the party in order for the seven defected governors to come back to the party.

Tukur further stated that the NEC of the party had no power to appoint the national chairman adding that the votes and proceedings of NEC held at Wadata House on January 15 and 20, 2014, which deliberated on his resignation as national chairman and appointment of Mu’azu as chairman were a nullity.

He added that even if he had submitted a letter of resignation on January 15 to the party, the letter did not comply with Section 47(5) of the party’s constitution, which required that a 30-day prior notice should be given.

In his response to the application, counsel to PDP and Mu’azu, Solomon Umoh (SAN) opposed it and ‎prayed the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiff lacked the right to institute such suit.

He submitted that the counter claim filed by the second defendant was strange in law and should not be accepted by the court.

He added that the plaintiff in the suit did not indicate any injury he had suffered or would suffer by reason of which the suit was brought.

Umoh also stated that the plaintiff had not pursued or exhaust the domestic or internal remedies available within the constitution of the party prior to the institution of the suit.

He further‎ argued that the subject matter was an internal affair of the party, which the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.

He thereby prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.

The fourth respondent in the suit, INEC did not file any application and pledged to maintain neutrality.

After listening to all the parties, the trial judge,§ Justice Evoh Chukwu reserved judgment.


Source:

http://theguardianmobile.com/readNewsItem1.php?nid=37063