7th January, 2011
Justice Isaq Bello of the FCT High Court on Thursday fixed Jan. 10 for ruling on preliminary objections against a suit praying the court to compel PDP to honour its alleged agreement on rotational presidency. 
Before adjourning, the court entertained arguments from the defendants’ counsel.
Mr. Yahaya Kwande, Chief Dubem Onyia and another had brought an action praying the court to compel PDP to choose its presidential candidate in the 2011Â election from the North.
The PDP, its national chairman, President Goodluck Jonathan and INEC are the defendants in the suit.
Mr. Joe Gadzama (SAN), counsel to PDP, said his client’s notice of objection was filed on Dec. 21, 2010, and served all parties two days after.
He submitted that the plaintiffs did not have the “locus†and, therefore, lacked a reasonable cause of action against his client.
Gadzama also argued that the action was not justiciable and as such, amounted to abuse of judicial process.
He said that the Dec.1, 2010 judgment on a similar case by the Chief Judge, Justice Lawal Gummi, was binding on all members of PDP.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Gummi struck out a similar suit filed by Alhaji Sani Dutsinma, asking the court to order PDP to field its presidential candidate from the North.
Dutsinma had sued PDP and the National Chairman of the party, Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, over the alleged breach of the party’s constitution on zoning and rotation of political offices.
Gummi in his judgment ruled that “the argument on zoning or rotation or who to sponsor in the PDP is purely a domestic and political party’s affair.â€
Gadzama said that it was compulsory for all members of the party, which included the plaintiffs, to honour the December judgment. He said all members of the party were regarded as necessary parties in the two matters. Mr. Alex Iziyon, counsel to Jonathan, submitted that the Dec. 1, 2010, decision of the FCT High Court was in “remâ€, and as such, had rendered the current action useless.
He submitted that if the court granted the prayers of the plaintiffs based on facts instead of issues of law, the incumbent president’s right to seek a second term as guaranteed by Section 42 of the constitution would have been violated.
Iziyon said that it was not true that the 1999 constitution, the PDP constitution and the Electoral Act of 2010 were in conflict as alleged by the plaintiffs. He explained that the constitution only provides for rotation of positions within the party and available offices to reflect federal character and not on political offices.
Iziyon submitted that the plaintiffs must be resisted from bringing decisions of courts within the same judicial division on a collision course.
“The plaintiffs must be resisted from introducing anarchy into the Judiciary, the case is a palpable example of political interlopers who are bent on crashing our nascent democracy and the Judiciary,†he said.
Arguing on the “locus†of the plaintiffs, Chief Sola Oke, counsel to the PDP National Chairman, said that Article 87 (10) of PDP constitution only placed “locus†on aggrieved persons, who had contested the party’s primaries.
“The plaintiffs are not aspiring to contest the 2011 presidential election on the platform of the party just as the party primaries have not been conducted; the suit is built on nothing and so you cannot get anything out of it,†Oke said.
He said that the plaintiffs, as constituted, lacked the impetus to take an action challenging the selection process of the party.
“I would not say the plaintiffs are interlopers or busy-bodies, but suffice to say that they are not directly linked by the decision to allow Jonathan contest the 2011 presidential election,†he said.
