The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday reserved judgement in a suit filed by an aspirant to the House of Representatives from Adamawa State, Aliyu Abuba Gurin, seeking to unseat that National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Alhaji Adamu Mu’azu, and at the same time stall the planed delegates convention of the party.
Joined as first to fourth defendants in the case are the PDP; a former National Chairman of the party, Bamanga Tukur; Mu’azu; and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, counsel to the plaintiff, Rotimi Oguneso, argued that the resignation of Tukur, did not comply with the provision of Section 47(5) of the constitution of the party, which stipulates that a 30 days notice be given to the National Executive Committee by Tukur.
Oguneso further argued that the appointment of Mu’azu as the new chairman did not follow the laid down provisions of the party constitution.
Gurin further contended that what gave him locus to institute the suit is his membership of the party.
He however prayed the court to set aside the appointment of Mu’azu.
The second plaintiff in the matter, Tukur, through his counsel, Rotimi Oguneso, 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 has no power to appoint the national chairman, adding that the votes and proceedings of NEC held at Wadata House onJanuary 15 and 20, which deliberated on his resignation as national chairman and appointment of Mu’azu as chairman, are 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 requires that a 30 days prior notice should be given.
Opposing the application, counsel to PDP and Mu’azu, Solomon Umor (SAN), asked the court to dismiss the suit on ground that the plaintiff lacks the right to institute such suit.
Umor further noted that the counter claim filed by the second defendant is strange in law and cannot be accepted by court.
He added that the plaintiff in the suit did not indicate any injury he has suffered or would suffer by reason of which the suit was brought.
Umor also stated that the plaintiff has not pursued or exhausted 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 is an internal affair of the party, which the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.
He thus prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
The fourth respondent in the suit, INEC, did not not file any application but submitted that it will be neutral.
After listening to all the parties, the trial judge, Justice Evoh Chukwu, reserved judgement.