Justice Evoh Chukwu of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has reserved judgement in a suit seeking the removal of Adamu Mu’azu as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) National Chairman.
An aspirant to the House of Representatives from Adamawa state, Aliyu Abuba Gurin, who filed the suit, is also seeking to stop the upcoming national convention of the ruling party.
The Plaintiff, joined as first to fourth defendants, the PDP, Bamanga Tukur, Adamu Mu’azu and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, counsel to the plaintiff, Rotimi Oguneso argued that the resignation of the immediate past Chairman of the party, Bamanga Tukur, did not comply with the provision of Section 47(5) of the constitution of the party which stipulates that 30 days notice be given to the National Executive Committee by Bamanga Tukur.
He further argued that the appointment of Mu’azu as the new chairman did not follow the laid down provisions of the party constitution.
The plaintiff further contended that what gave him locus to institute the suit is his membership of the party.
Therefore, he 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 on January 15 and 20 which deliberated on his resignation as national chairman and appointment of Mu’azu as chairman are nullity.
According to him, 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.
Howver, counsel to PDP and Mu’azu, Solomon Umor, SAN, opposed the application, asking the court to dismiss the suit on ground that the plaintiff lacks the right to institute such.
He further noted that the counter claim filed by the second defendant, Tukur, is strange in law and cannot be accepted by court.
Umor noted 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.
He also argued that the plaintiff has not pursued or exhaust the domestic or internal remedies available within the constitution of the party prior to the institution of the suit.
He had further argued that the subject matter is an internal affairs of the party which the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain.
On its part, the fourth respondent in the suit, INEC did not file any application but submitted that it will be neutral.
