10th January, 2011
Justice Ishaq Bello of an Abuja High Court on Monday delivered judgments on three cases instituted by members of the Peoples Democratic Party who were sympathetic to the political aspirations of both President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar in the forthcoming April general elections.
Ambassador Yahaya Kwande, Chief Dubem Onyia and Alhaji Lawal Kaita, all close associates of former Vice President Atiku Abaubakar had approached the court seeking amongst other orders, an order restraining the Peoples Democratic Party from nominating President Goodluck Jonathan or any other candidate not from the Northern political zone of the country as the party’s flag bearer for the forth coming presidential election in accordance to the zoning principles which is enshrined in section 7 (2) (c) of the party’s constitution as the product of the party’s national caucus resolution of 2nd December, 2002.
While this suit was being heard, Alhaji Sadiq Jada, a chieftain of the party from Jada Ward 2 in Jada Local Government Area of Adamawa state who is sympathetic to the aspirations of President Goodluck Jonathan, dashed to the same court to file a suit challenging the waiver granted by the national leadership of the party to Atiku Abubakar when returned to the fold of the party after abandoning the Action Congress of Nigeria, on which platform he pursued an unsuccessful bid for the Presidency in 2007.
Alhaji Jada had contended that the waiver granted to Atiku by the National Working Committee of the PDP to contest for an elective post did not comply with the procedure spelt out in the party’s constitution and sought for an interlocutory injunction restraining the party from taking any action towards screening Atiku for the purpose of contesting the presidential election on the platform of the PDP pending the determination of the suit as well as an order restraining the former Vice President from holding out himself as a financial member of the PDP or appearing before the screening committee for the purpose of being screened for the presidential primary of the party.
Yet while these suits were pending, Dr. Bala Takaya and Senator Abdulahi Kirim, both chieftains of the polarized party, filed another suit seeking to disqualify Atiku Abubakar from being screened by the Peoples Democratic Party for the purpose of contesting the party’s presidential primary election on the grounds of an indictment for corruption and money laundering activities by the United States Congress and the purported recognition of the former Vice President as the Northern Presidential candidate of the party by Alhaji Adamu Ciroma led Northern People Leaders Forum which action, he said, is ultra vires and against the constitution of the party.
The duo asked the court to hold that Atiku Abubakar is not a fit and proper person to be screened as an aspirant for the purpose of contesting for the presidential ticket of the PDP or any political party for that matter based on the findings of the US Home Security Committee and urged the court to compel anti corruption and security agencies in the country to commence investigations against the former Vice President.
In delivery judgments in these cases, Justice Ishaq Bello dismissed that filed by Alhaji Sadiq Jada challenging the waiver which was granted to Atiku Abubakar by the national leadership of the party. The court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the party and Atiku Abubakar questioning the locus standi of Alhaji Jada in instituting the suit. Whilw Atiku questioned the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit; the party had posited that the plaintiff did not exhaust internal mechanisms for conflict resolutions before dashing to court to seek redress.
In agreeing with the defendants, the court held that even though Alhaji Jada is a card carrying member of the PDP, he has not suffered any injury as a result of Atiku’s re entry into the party. It further held that Alhaji Sadiq Jada is merely an interloper who is merely constituting himself into litigation nuisance and dismissed the suit without awarding any cost.
On the suit filed by Bala Takaya and Senator Abdullahi Kirim, the court held that the suit is premature as the plaintiffs did not await the party to respond to the complaints they authored to the party wherein they listed their grouse against the candidacy of the former Vice President with respect to the findings of the US Congress which raised allegation of money laundering against the former Vice President. The court further relied on the position canvassed by counsel to the party in the suit, Mr. Joe Kyari Gadzama to the effect that screening in a process and not an end in itself as well as his undertaking to the court that the party’s screening committee will look into the complaints raised against the former Vice President with a view to ascertaining whether or not he will be screened out or screened in to compete for the party’s ticket.
On the suit filed by Atiku’s associate seeking to disqualify President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting on the strength of the zoning principle, Justice Bello dismissed the preliminary objections raised by both PDP and President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan wherein they challenged the locus standi of the plaintiffs in instituting the case. He held that the presidential interest of President Jonathan in the 2011 which will jeopardize the chances of the plaintiffs to contest various positions in the party had clothed the plaintiffs with requisite locus standi to institute the case.
The court also departed from an earlier judgment delivered on the zoning issue by Justice Lawal Gunmi, the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court and held that the phrase “shall adhere†as contained in the article 7.2 (c) of the party’s constitution recognizing the rotation or zoning of the presidency for peace and fairness in the polity, is a command imposing an obligation on the leadership of the party and binding on the party and its members.
The court further stated that it is imperative to note that rules and regulations must be recognized by political parties and that an aggrieved person or persons must have unhindered or unimpeded access to court to seek redress but however observed that such unimpeded right to approach the court must be in relation to a breach of constitutional provisions.
On this note, the court held that for a cause of action to arise, that a primary must have been held by the party and that only a person who participated in that primary can come to court in line with section 87 (9)(10)of the Electoral Act 2010.
Consequent upon this, the court held that there is no allegation of any breach before it as the PDP has not conducted its Presidential primary and dismissed the suit on account of no sufficient reasonable cause of action.
By Nnamdi Felix/Abuja