Suit to remove Tukur, others begins June 10
MAY 21, 2013
PDP National Chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur
An Abuja High Court on Monday ordered parties in the legal battle over the 17 positions in the Peoples Democratic Party National Working Committee to file all relevant processes before June 10, 2013.
The court is expected to begin definite hearing in the matter on that day.
The presiding judge, Justice Suleiman Belgore, said the court would consider all the processes alongside the originating summons.
Justice Belgore gave the order when counsel for the various parties appeared before him ahead of the commencement of definite hearing in the suit instituted by Abba Yake, Alhaji Yahaya Sule and Bashir Maidugu.
The plaintiffs, who are members of the PDP, are challenging the “election or appointment” of 17 members of the party’s NWC.
They want the court to nullify the emergence of the defendants as officers of the PDP because their election breached certain provisions of the party’s constitution.
In a 27-paragraph affidavit, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ continued stay in office would “jeopardise the workings and activities” of the party, “including the conduct of future nomination or election of candidates into public offices.”
The NWC members occupying the contested positions, by virtue of the originating summons are Dr. Sam Jaja (Deputy National Chairman); Solomon Onwe (Deputy National Secretary); Bala Ka’Oje (National Treasurer); Chief Bode Mustapha (National Auditor); and Umar Tsauri (Deputy National Auditor).
Others are Olisa Metuh (National Publicity Secretary); Dr. (Mrs) Kema Chikwe (Women Leader); Victor Kwon (National Legal Adviser); and Anunakar Mustapha (National Organising Secretary).
The plaintiffs said the Independent National Electoral Commission, which monitored the March 24, 2012 National Convention, “observed and reported that the mode of election adopted for single candidates was not in accordance with the mode stipulated in paragraph 6.0 (ii) of page 17 of the Guidelines for the Conduct of Year 2012 Convention and therefore unacceptable to the Commission”.
They further averred that the “PDP arbitrarily caused the return” of the defendants into each of their various national offices.
They claimed that the alleged actions of the PDP denied them the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
The plaintiffs asked the court to determine some questions, including whether the “purported appointment or selection by affirmation and continuous appointment” of the defendants is a nullity by virtue of the provisions of Article 2 and 85 of the constitution of the PDP 2009 (as amended).
No comments:
Post a Comment