The Pankshin Division of the Plateau State High Court Presided over by Hon. Justice Bon Ngyou has dismissed an Application seeking to nullify the Hon. Chris Adukuchili Hassan's led EXCO of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) Plateau State Chapter.
The matter in suit No: PLD/P36/2021 filed by Muhammed Abdulwahab (suing for himself as Chairman and on behalf of Members of Gumshar Ward Executive Committee and 3 Adhoc Delegates elected on 14th September, 2021 and three others who equally sued on behalf of themselves as Chairmen and on behalf of members of Kanam and Jarmai Ward Executive Committees and 3 Adhoc Delegates of same against the PDP, Hon. Chris Adukuchili Hassan and five others.
The Plaintiffs sought seven declarative Reliefs and three Orders as follows: AN ORDER setting aside the Congresses conducted by the 1 Defendant (PDP) on the election of 2nd Defendant as Chairman (Hon. Chris Adukuchili Hassan) and Members of the 1" Defendant's State Executive Committee and the 6" Defendants as the Chairman and Members of the Kanam Local Government Executive Committee; for being unconstitutional, unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
AN ORDER directing the 2nd Defendant ( Hon. Chris Adukuchili Hassan) to vacate and cease forthwith from acting as Chairman and Members of the 1 Defendant's State Executive Committee and the 6th Defendant to vacate and cease forthwith from acting as the Chairman and Members of the Kanam Local Government Executive Committee.
AN ORDER directing the removal of the names of the 3, 4th and 5th Defendants and cease forthwith from acting or parading themselves in any manner whatsoever as Chairmen and Members of the Ward Executive Committees of Gumsher, Kanam, Jarmai Wards for being unlawfully and unconstitutionally substituted to represent Gumsher, Kanam, Jarmal Wards, respectively.
Before the Ruling, Hon. Justice Ngyou had ordered that parties addressed him on the applicability of Section 285(9)(14) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) and in his ruling today on the Preliminary Objection, granted the reliefs sought by the Defendants and stroke out the suit for lack of jurisdiction, same being an internal affairs of the PDP.
Our correspondent could not get Counsel for the Claimants for his response after court session. However Counsel for the Defendants, F. W Manja Esq and John Amamma Esq stated that when a Judgement is novel and attempts to lay to rest a legal issue, that Judgement is termed "Locus-Classicus".
They further noted that the issue of pre-election matter as contemplated by the electoral act and section 184 of the Constitution had suffered several interpretations by Lawyers just as in the instant case and highly commended the industry put by the Hon Justice Bond Ngyou to unravel the correct position of the law to be restricted to Candidates and primary elections only clears the air as to what constitutes pre-election matter.
According to Counsel, some of the sailaint points in the judgement are that while both counsel in the suit agreed that the matter falls under pre-election matters, the court was of the view that it does not and can not be classified as pre-election matter for the following reasons:
"That the law is clear that pre-election matters are all matters that are filed by candidates, unless and until the plaintiff is a candidate emerging from the conduct of primary elections or the defendant is a candidate emerging from same, it cannot fall withing pre-election matter.
"That the suit was primarily challenging the process and conduct of party Congresses which is strictly an internal affairs of a political party. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was a candidate, thus the matter does not have the status of a pre-election matter.
"That political parties must stop and desist from enlarging the concept of pre-election matter as contemplated by the law to include internal affairs and activities of political parties like party congresses as in the instant case".
Consequently, Counsel further stated that until and unless the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court decided otherwise, the decision of the court remains the law.
0 Comments
Post a Comment