Court decides Tukur’s fate July 25

JULY 16, 2013  

PDP National Chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur

An Abuja High Court on Monday fixed July 25, 2013, to deliver its ruling in a suit, in which three members of the Peoples Democratic Party asked it to restrain Alhaji Bamanga Tukur from parading himself as the national chairman of the party.

Justice Suleiman Belgore set the date after listening to the submissions of counsel for the parties in the matter.

The plaintiffs – Abba Yale, Yahaya Aruwa Sule and Bashir Maidugu – also want the court to declare that the appointment of members of the party’s Interim National Working Committee by the National Executive Committee on June 20, 2013, was illegal, null and void.

Their lawyer, Jubril Okutepa, SAN, argued that the action of NEC in appointing the members of the Interim National Working Committee was undemocratic and that it “preempts the suit before the court.”

The suit was initially filed to challenge the election or appointment of members of the party’s National Working Committee, whose emergence did not comply with the due process, according to the plaintiffs.

However, although the concerned NWC members had since resigned, the plaintiffs want the court to declare that the emergence of the interim NWC members was illegal.

Okutepa further argued that the PDP NEC did not meet the number required to form a quorum before taking the decision, as the NWC members had already resigned before the commencement of the NEC meeting.

According to him, since a quorum was not formed before the NEC meeting, Tukur should stop parading himself as the national chairman of the party.

The plaintiffs are also asking the court to stop the party from going ahead to hold a planned national convention.

They maintain that the decisions taken by the PDP NEC was intended to foist a fait accompli on the court, in respect of the motion on notice.

Citing legal authorities, Okutepa said, “All judicial decisions on this point support the proposition that none of the parties in litigation before a court of law is allowed to take the law into his own hands and foist a fait accompli on the court thereby rendering it impossible for the court to arrive at a decision one way or the other on the merits of the issue before it or render any decision it may take nugatory or futile.

“What then is the remedy of the court where it finds itself in this situation?

“I have earlier said that any court found in the same situation would frown on  it.

“I also add that the court must in addition take positive and mandatory act in order to instill judicial discipline on the erring party and in order to maintain, restore and preserve the dignity and respect of the court.”