An FCT High Court in Jabi suspended Adams Oshiomhole as the national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) earlier on Wednesday.

Justice Danlami Senchi ordered Oshiomhole to stop parading himself as the chairman of the party pending the determination of the substantive suit, which is seeking his perpetual removal as the APC chairman.

The court’s order followed a motion on notice filed on January 16 by Comrade Mustapha Salihu, the APC National Vice Chairman for North East; Anselm Ojezua, the party’s Edo State chairman; and four others.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MOTION

-They asked the court through their lawyer, Oluwole Afolabi, for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining Oshiomhole (1st respondent) “from continuing to parade himself or performing any function as the National Chairman of the 2nd respondent (APC) or representing the 2nd respondent in any capacity pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

They also asked for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining APC from recognising or continuing to recognise Oshiomhole as its National Chairman “including giving effect to any of his decisions or according him any privilege/benefit accruing to its National Chairman pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

Also, they asked for “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from permitting or continuing to permit the 1st respondent to function as its National Chairman including representing the 2nd respondent at any engagement or allowing him access to the office of Chairman of the 2nd respondent pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

More so, they asked the court to order the IGP and SSS “to deploy their staff, agents and operatives to prevent the 1st respondent from continuing to occupy the office of the National Chairman of the 2nd respondent and from having access to the said office pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

Adopting processes on the motion on Monday, Afolabi told the court that the essence of the motion was to preserve the res (subject matter) of the substantive suit.