[size=14pt]Jubilation as court knocks out zoning suit[/size] .
Thursday, 02 December 2010 00:00 Nigerian Compass .Share 0
Atiku’s consensus choice perfect, says Ciroma

Ayodele Adegbuyi & Kunle Olasanmi, Abuja

THERE was wild jubilation in the premises of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Abuja, yesterday, when the court made a final pronouncement on the controversial zoning arrangement of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The court said that although it is mandatory for members of the PDP to respect the zoning arrangement, as provided for in Article 7.2 (C) of the party’s constitution, it, however, cannot force the party leadership to zone the Presidency “to a certain area”.


Justice Lawal Gumi, in his judgement on the suit brought by a PDP member, Sani Dutsinma, said: “The provision of Article 7.2 (c) of the 1st defendant’s constitution 2009 as amended recognises the principle of zoning and rotation of party and public elective offices. The said article is subsisting and binding on the party, its organs and members. But, I am unable to make a declaration that the North is entitled to bear the presidential ticket of the 1st defendant for two consecutive terms, 2007 and 2011 respectively, as the South did in 1999 and 2003, same being a political question and, therefore, not justiciable.”

Justice Gumi also declined to make a declaration that the PDP will be in breach of its constitution, if it sponsors a Southern presidential aspirant where the North has not exhausted its two consecutive terms. This is because the party does not anywhere provide for such arrangements, where no such breach has occurred, he added.

Justice Gumi further held that “though Article 7.2(c) recognises zoning and rotation, it is an internal matter for the party to determine and decide how and where the zoning should be done”.

He also said that compelling a political party to sponsor a candidate from a particular zone is obviously an act of delving into the internal affairs of the party. On this note, Justice Gumi endorsed the general principle that the court should respect the independence of parties in matters that are strictly their internal affairs.

He held that “on the other hand, there is also the need to preserve the sanctity of institutions, and courts would not readily interfere, where it is found that the question the court is called to determine is one which borders on the internal arrangements of institutions.

“To the extent to which a court could interfere, it has been held that though the way a party conducts its affairs is not subject to the jurisdiction of a court of law, the court may interfere if a party breaches its constitution to enforce the breached provision.

“On the other hand, the court is not a regulatory commission. A court must distinguish itself from political institutions by limiting itself to the resolution of concrete cases and controversies according to the given standards of law.

“Consequently, though Art 7.2 (C) recognises zoning and rotation, it is an internal matter for the party to determine and decide how to and where the zoning is done. Forcing a political party to sponsor candidates from a certain zone in the country is clearly delving into the internal affairs of that party.

“In this case, the constitution of the first defendant simply recognises zoning and rotation. It has not stated that any part of the country would hold the position of the president or any other party or public elective office for any specified period of time.

“For the court to, therefore, insist or order that only candidates from a particular zone should be sponsored, when the constitution of the 1st defendant has not so defined terms and conditions is an invitation for the court to enter into the political thicket. Self- restraint in matters such as this is a virtue the court must cultivate.

“Like the court, the ‘National Caucus’ or the ‘Enlarged National Caucus’ has no business with the internal policies of the party. If it did, it will be acting ultra vires and such an action is null and void. In all, the Constitution of the (PDP) does not even recognise the existence of an ‘Enlarged National Caucus’ and any decision taken by that legally non-existent body goes to naught.”

The judge also said that if a party’s constitution makes a provision as to how its affairs should be run, it must be run in that direction.

He said the court is duty-bound to ensure that the party complies with its constitutional requirements.

In this instance, Justice Gumi said the PDP constitution recognises zoning and rotation, even though it has not proved how it should be carried out among members of the party.

The plaintiff brought the suit via an originating summon, asking the court to grant the following reliefs:

•A declaration that Article7.2(c) of the 1st defendant’s constitution 2009 as amended is subsisting and binding on the party, its organs and members.

•A declaration that the North is entitled to bear the presidential ticket of the 1st defendant for two consecutive terms, 2007 and 20011 respectively, as the South did in 1999 and 2003.

•And an order compelling the defendant, its organs and members to respect the provision of Article 7.2 (c) of the 1st defendant’s constitution as amended in 2009 by sponsoring a Northern presidential aspirant in the 2007 presidential election.

Some members of the party went into wild jubilation after the judgement, saying that they had been vindicated.

Meanwhile, weeks after former Vice President Atiku Abubakar was picked as the candidate of the Northern Political Leaders Forum (NPLF) to vie for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential ticket, the Malam Adamu Ciroma-led NPLF leadership insisted yesterday that the choice was perfect.

Since Atiku’s name was announced as the favoured aspirant, supporters of former military President, General Ibrahim Babangida (rtd); former National Security Adviser (NSA), Lt-General Aliyu Gusau (rtd) and Governor Bukola Saraki of Kwara State have been kicking against the move, saying that the former Vice President between 1999 and 2007 “is not the best choice.”

But the Ciroma leadership yesterday described the criticism as subjective. In fact, it awarded itself a pass mark.

While regretting that in reaching out to stakeholders in the North, it omitted some individuals and groups before concluding its assignment, it, however, pleaded with such individuals, promising them that Atiku would reach out to them.

It explained why the consensus idea had no input from the PDP National leadership, saying that the party’s constitution has barred it and its officials from taking sides in a contest for elective posts among its members.

A statement signed by the Secretary of the Consensus Committee, Alhaji Bello Sabo Abdulkadir, revealed that the NPFL said it was using the opportunity to clarify some misconceptions that has trailed Atiku’s choice.

It said that despite these misconceptions, the decision was in the interest of the country as a whole.

“Let us seize this opportunity to, once again, reassure Nigerians that the consensus process has worked and will serve the best interest of Nigeria and its diverse peoples and cultures in both the short and long run.

“In particular, we note the complaint by some groups that they have not been contacted or consulted before the emergence of the Consensus Candidate. Although the Consensus Committee has consulted widely in the North and throughout the country, it has not been possible for the Committee to meet each and every individual and group before the conclusion of its assignment.

“Now that the Consensus Candidate has emerged, the consultation process will be even more intensive. We assure you that Atiku Abubakar will soon be in your neighborhood.”

On why the PDP and its leadership did not play any role, the NPFL said: “For the avoidance of doubt, the consensus process was not an initiative of any political party but of the aspirants themselves who were desirous of reducing their numbers from four to one in order to pool their political resources together as strategy to win the primary election of their party, the Peoples Democratic Party.

“The PDP was not part of the process because the constitution of the party has bared it and its officials from taking sides in a contest for elective posts between its members. The participation of the party would have prejudiced the interests of other contending members some of whom are probably yet to emerge,” the statement said.

http://www.compassnewspaper.com/NG/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70791:jubilation-as-court-knocks-out-zoning-suit&catid=43:news&Itemid=799

Obituary.
May zoning RIP.

Another step in our long trek to redeeming the country has been taken.

So what did we gain from this?

It is an internal agreement that , unless, necessary, the courts will rather stay away from
The argument continues
This zoning thing cannot be solved by the court

The south will live to regret it if zoning as agreed upon in 1999 is not respected.

Whoever said it was a judicial matter?

“In this case, the constitution of the first defendant simply recognises zoning and rotation. It has not stated that any part of the country would hold the position of the president or any other party or public elective office for any specified period of time.

“For the court to, therefore, insist or order that only candidates from a particular zone should be sponsored, when the constitution of the 1st defendant has not so defined terms and conditions is an invitation for the court to enter into the political thicket. Self- restraint in matters such as this is a virtue the court must cultivate.

“Like the court, the ‘National Caucus’ or the ‘Enlarged National Caucus’ has no business with the internal policies of the party. If it did, it will be acting ultra vires and such an action is null and void. In all, the Constitution of the (PDP) does not even recognise the existence of an ‘Enlarged National Caucus’ and any decision taken by that legally non-existent body goes to naught.”

Pretty damning!

Sometimes people bring themselves to public ridicule. I don't think Sani Dutsinma who brought the case needed to go to court to get told the above. He would have got much the same answer from asking market men and women, or his driver and cook.

We have had enough funny politics in Nigeria, lets bury zoning and face the next target, the NASS.

Soon you will be shouting marginalization
Zoning is the way forward or how do you expect minorities to ever have a chance at becoming the president of the country

Any southerner against zoning is just being myopic
GEJ there today is not the end all, be all of Nigeria politics

Power is transient, and if you want to keep this country together,in peace, then zoning is the right thing to do
Nothing stops the north from ruling the country for the next 40 years; all they need to do is to operate under the rader and the grab power for good after GEJ's tenure completes. They can do it.

You think the north does not have credible people, think again
There are enough notherners competent enough to rule the country from now to eternity

Again, zoning is the way forward!

^
GEJ was picked to pacify the ND, not because of zoning. The only interests protected by zoning were those of the majority.

It is time for Nigerians, old and young, female and male to choose the path of merit over region or ethnicity and say bye bye the stone age politics of ethnicity and religion.
Let those who cannot hear the call be left standing while others race ahead. . . Next target, NASS.

RIP Zoning
1999-2010

Beaf:

^
GEJ was picked to pacify the ND, not because of zoning. The only interests protected by zoning were those of the majority.

It is time for Nigerians, old and young, female and male to choose the path of merit over region or ethnicity and say bye bye the stone age politics of ethnicity and religion.
Let those who cannot hear the call be left standing while others race ahead. . . Next target, NASS.

Just the way OBJ was picked by the powers that be to pacify the SW.
How is it different from zoning?

It is the only option we have to ensure fairness in our polity

Again, would you rather have notherners rule Nigeria for the next 40 years, because, contrary to what they feed you, northerners do have enough competent people to rule Nigeria for as long as it exists. And, they have the numbers as well

^
I don't understand your argument that we should look backwards, insead of racing ahead. IBB "stepped aside," in 1993, for the uninitiate that means he has been ruling in the background by proxy since 1993. Shine your eyes:

[list]
[li]IBB left Abacha in place to safeguard things, in his own words[/li]
[li]Abacha ran things after intimidating Shonekan out of Aso Rock[/li]
[li]Abdulsalami Abubakar (IBB's cousin) took over from Abachs[/li]
[li]IBB chose Obj to run the show in 1999 (what you unknowingly attribute to "zoning"[/li]
[/list]

If you ain't tired of IBB, the vast majority are.
One last thing, the North cannot rule for the next 40 years. How did you come to believe such an impossibility?

www.thisdayonline.com

Court Okays Zoning But Fails to Stop Jonathan
From Tobi Soniyi in Abuja, 12.01.2010


An Abuja High Court sitting in Maitama has said President Goodluck Jonathan can contest the 2011 presidential election, though it also upheld the zoning arrangement enshrined in Article 7.2 (c) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) constitution.
The court refused to declare that the North was entitled to produce the president by 2011.

The Chief Judge of the Abuja High Court, Justice Lawal Gummi, while delivering judgment in a suit filed by a member of the party, Dutsinma, yesterday held that when a party had made a constitution for itself, it must comply with the provisions of its constitution.
He, however, said it was within the party's discretion to decide how its zoning arrangement would be implemented.
According to the judge, Article 7.2 (c) of the first defendant’s constitution (PDP) 2009 as amended recognizes the principle of zoning and rotation of party and public elective offices.

He said: “The said article is subsisting and binding on the party, its organs and members. But I am unable to make a declaration that the North is entitled to bear the presidential ticket of the first defendant for two consecutive terms 2007 and 2011 respectively as the South did in 1999 and 2003, same being a political question and therefore not justifiable.”
Justice Gummi also declined to make a declaration that PDP would be in breach of its constitution if it sponsored a Southern presidential aspirant when the North had not exhausted its two consecutive terms.
Justice Gummi further said: “Though Article 7.2 (c) recognizes zoning and rotation. It is an internal matter for the party to determine and decide how and where the zoning should be done."
He also said that compelling a political party to sponsor a candidate from a particular zone was obviously an act of delving into the internal affairs of the party.

On this note Justice Gummi endorsed the general principle that the court should respect the independence of parties in matters that were strictly the internal affairs of the party.
The court also said that if a party’s constitution made a provision as to how its affairs should be run, it must be run in that direction.
He said the court was duty bound to ensure that the party complied with its constitutional requirements.
In this instance, Justice Gummi said the PDP constitution recognized zoning and rotation even though it had not proved how it should be carried out among members of the party.

The court also held that for it to therefore give an order that only candidates from a particular zone should be sponsored where the constitution of the PDP had not so defined would amount to an invitation for the court to delve into internal affairs of the party.
The plaintiff, Dutsinma, had brought the suit via an originating summons asking the court for a declaration that Article 7.2(c) of the first defendant's constitution 2009 as amended was subsisting and binding on the party, its organs and members.
He also asked for a declaration that the North was entitled to bear the presidential ticket of the first defendant for two consecutive terms 2007 and 2011 respectively as the South did in 1999 and 2003.

He asked for an order compelling PDP, its organs and members to respect the provision of Article 7.2 (c) of the party's constitution as amended by sponsoring a Northern presidential aspirant in the 2011 presidential election.
In its defence, PDP said it did not zone the presidency to the North for two consecutive terms.
In a counter-affidavit filed by the party to the suit, PDP said that the fact that it zoned the presidency to the North in 2007 did not mean that it would zone it to the same region for 2011.
In an eight-paragraph counter-affidavit to the originating summons, PDP also said it had not singled out any aspirant for encouragement, let alone adopt any aspirant from any part of Nigeria to vie for the office of the president of Nigeria under its platform.

The party said its constitution never specified that any zone would serve for two consecutive terms and as such, asked the court to discountenance the plaintiff’s statement claiming that a zone was entitled to two terms.
The affidavit, which was sworn to by a lawyer in the employment of the party, Mr. Owukori Akuyibo, who said he had the authority of the party's Legal Adviser, Chief Olusola Oke, to depose to the affidavit read: “It is not correct to state that the presidential flag bearer of the 1st defendant (PDP) for the 2011 election is zoned to the Northern Nigeria as the 1st defendant has decided that its members from all parts of Nigeria are free to apply to fly the 1st defendant’s flag."

The Chief Judge of the Abuja High Court, Justice Lawal Gummi, while delivering judgment in a suit filed by a member of the party, Dutsinma, yesterday held that when a party had made a constitution for itself, it must comply with the provisions of its constitution.
He, however, said it was within the party's discretion to decide how its zoning arrangement would be implemented.
According to the judge, Article 7.2 (c) of the first defendant’s constitution (PDP) 2009 as amended recognizes the principle of zoning and rotation of party and public elective offices.

He said: “The said article is subsisting and binding on the party, its organs and members. But I am unable to make a declaration that the North is entitled to bear the presidential ticket of the first defendant for two consecutive terms 2007 and 2011 respectively as the South did in 1999 and 2003, same being a political question and therefore not justifiable.”
Justice Gummi also declined to make a declaration that PDP would be in breach of its constitution if it sponsored a Southern presidential aspirant when the North had not exhausted its two consecutive terms.
Justice Gummi further said: “Though Article 7.2 (c) recognizes zoning and rotation. I[b]t is an internal matter for the party to determine and decide how and where the zoning should be done."[/b]
He also said that compelling a political party to sponsor a candidate from a particular zone was obviously an act of delving into the internal affairs of the party.

On this note Justice Gummi endorsed the general principle that the court should respect the independence of parties in matters that were strictly the internal affairs of the party.
The court also said that if a party’s constitution made a provision as to how its affairs should be run, it must be run in that direction.
He said the court was duty bound to ensure that the party complied with its constitutional requirements.
In this instance, Justice Gummi said the PDP constitution recognized zoning and rotation even though it had not proved how it should be carried out among members of the party.

The court also held that for it to therefore give an order that only candidates from a particular zone should be sponsored where the constitution of the PDP had not so defined would amount to an invitation for the court to delve into internal affairs of the party.
The plaintiff, Dutsinma, had brought the suit via an originating summons asking the court for a declaration that Article 7.2(c) of the first defendant's constitution 2009 as amended was subsisting and binding on the party, its organs and members.
He also asked for a declaration that the North was entitled to bear the presidential ticket of the first defendant for two consecutive terms 2007 and 2011 respectively as the South did in 1999 and 2003.



what is the jubilation about really?

Beaf:

^
I don't understand your argument that we should look backwards, insead of racing ahead. IBB "stepped aside," in 1993, for the uninitiate that means he has been ruling in the background by proxy since 1993. Shine your eyes:
[list]
[li]IBB left Abacha in place to safeguard things, in his own words[/li]
[li]Abacha ran things after intimidating Shonekan out of Aso Rock[/li]
[li]Abdulsalami Abubakar (IBB's cousin) took over from Abachs[/li]
[li]IBB chose Obj to run the show in 1999 (what you unknowingly attribute to "zoning"[/li]
[/list]
If you ain't tired of IBB, the vast majority are.
One last thing, the North cannot rule for the next 40 years. How did you come to believe such an impossibility?

Although, it is called the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigeria is not a true republic. What we practice is democracy, at least we pretend to. In America , which is Republic,
the popular vote dictates the electoral vote but the electoral vote ensures a more balanced representation for less densely populated regions. In Nigeria, the presidential elction  is determined via the popular vote. And since there is nothing like the electoral college, and without zoning, less densely populated regions are simply cheated out of the national cake. And as long as the different ethnic groups continue to vote along ethnic lines, the North will inevitably continue to hold on to power. Because, it is easier for the north to rally around a candidate, than for the south to do so.

Remember Awo, the greatest politician ever produced in Nigeria, could not rule the country because he could not get others, especially the Igbos, to support his cause. Same thing happened to Azikiwe. Northerners understand this quite well, and are always looking for the slightest opportunity to exploit that crack.

But with zoning, everyone is eventually given the opportunity to rule the country by presenting their best candidate, at different times.

Don't be mislead by the headline guys. Whilst the judge has "allowed" GEJ to contest the election he has also stated clearly that zoning is indeed part of the PDPs constitution. This is key because GEJ/OBJ have spent the best part of 3 months trying to convince the whole world otherwise. Let me be very clear to everyone this decision will be greeted favourably by ALL anti GEJ/OBJ nigerian in the country. Nobody expected the judge to disqualify GEJ from contesting. But this has proved he is a liar. Again. This is all about winning the convention and so far the cowboy is loosing the battle and badly.

In fact, I don't even think it will be close. At all.

^
The judge simply repeated PDP's official position. So Nwodo and co's views on zoning are now reinforced by the law of the land. Now thats a big deal!

fstranger2:

Although, it is called the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigeria is not a true republic. What we practice is democracy, at least we pretend to. In America , which is Republic,
the popular vote dictates the electoral vote but the electoral vote ensures a more balanced representation for less densely populated regions. In Nigeria, the presidential elction  is determined via the popular vote. And since there is nothing like the electoral college, and without zoning, less densely populated regions are simply cheated out of the national cake. And as long as the different ethnic groups continue to vote along ethnic lines, the North will inevitably continue to hold on to power. Because, it is easier for the north to rally around a candidate, than for the south to do so.

Remember Awo, the greatest politician ever produced in Nigeria, could not rule the country because he could not get others, especially the Igbos, to support his cause. Same thing happened to Azikiwe. Northerners understand this quite well, and are always looking for the slightest opportunity to exploit that crack.

But with zoning, everyone is eventually given the opportunity to rule the country by presenting their best candidate, at different times.

Don't waste your time with fairy tales and make believe, nothing above is based on fact; its more like wishes and dreams. Population is very secondary to vote spread in winning any election in Nigeria, and vote spread gains overwhelming importance in Presidential elections.

Read section 132 of the Nigerian constitution and come back to reality. You will find an online version of the constitution here: http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm

very sound judgement based on existing PDP constitution.

I don't believe either side has any reason to appeal this ruling or to jubilate

. I am impressed by Justice Lawal Gumi judgement.

Kobojunkie:

. I am impressed by Justice Lawal Gumi judgement.

is that all you have to say? seriously?

Did they say Nigeria will break up in 2015?

The signs are now more evident than ever

This is the best judgment to this zoning issue and it gives every party the freedom to do what they like.

The PDP constitution recognized zoning and which this judgment has reaffirmed here but there was missing the actual details and mechanism.

Atiku's group has been championing a fake mechanism which the court has rightly said does not exist, so let us carry on from here.

Kobojunkie:

. I am impressed by Justice Lawal Gumi judgement.

You dont have anything reasonable to say, seriously?