Justice Makhmud Liman of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, on Thursday adjourned till July 4, ruling on the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) National Convention held last month in the oil city.
The party held a parallel convention in Port Harcourt and Abuja on May 21.
While the Acting National Chairman, Ali Modu-Sheriff, convened the Port Harcourt convention, the party’s elders organised the Abuja meeting.
They were to elect their new executives at the convention.
The conventions however ended in deadlock. Instead of electing new leaders, the convention produced a caretaker committee headed by Senator Markafi, to the chagrin of the ex-Borno State governor who vowed never to relinquish his office in that manner.
Sheriff insisted that he remains the acting chairman of the party.
Makarfi on his part approached the court May 23 to seek an order of interim injunction restraining Sheriff from parading himself as the national chairman of PDP.
They are also asking the court to validate the Port Harcourt convention which produced the caretaker committee.
Justice Liman granted the order and adjourned the matter till June 7 for hearing.
On June 7, parties filed processes on the fact of the matter and the court adjourned the suit till Thursday for hearing.
On Thursday, parties canvassed their position and the court adjourned till June 4 for final judgement on whether the Port Harcourt convention is illegal or not.
Parties made presentations on their positions. Four motions were filed by the both parties. While Markafi and Ben Obi filed the originating summons on behalf of the PDP, Sheriff and three others who are respondents filed three applications.
They applications are – memorandum of condition appearance, dated and filed on May 26, motion to discharge the interim order of court, dated May 25 and filed May 26 and notice of pre-notice preliminary objection dated and filed on May 26.
Three of the motions were heard. But the one bordering on the experte order of interim injunction on Sheriff and co was not heard.
The court agreed that the timeline of 14 days for interim injunction has ended and should therefore not be over flogged.
However arguing on the originating summons, which bordered on the validity of the Port Harcourt convention and the agreements reached there, counsel for the plaintiffs, Oladejo Olaminkoran, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged the court to declare the convention legal, as against the declaration of the defence party.
In his argument, Olaminkoran claimed that the convention was legally convened and by the right persons empowered by the party constitution to do so and therefore should be upheld.
“One of the reasons we have come to court is that only the court of law can declare a particular action as legal or illegal, but the position of the PDP is that the convention was lawful, legal, backed by the PDP convention and was convened by the body that is constitutionally empowered to call such convention, the National Executive Committee of the party which included at that time Sheriff and who was the Acting National chairman and the National Party Secretary, who are the main respondent in this suit.”
Moving his motion earlier, Sheriff urged the court to strike out the name of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), as plaintiffs in the action, thereby dismissing the entire suit.
He argued that the use of the name of PDP, a cooperate entity in the suit by Makarfi and Ben Obi who are the plaintiffs in the suit is illegal.
“The reason for the submission is because, the use of the PDP corporate entity as a plaintiff to commence this action by Senators Makarfi and Ben Obi, is predicated on the illegal usurpation of the functions of the appropriate members of the party. The caretaker committee which they claim to lead is an illegal contraction, set up by their own admission on May 21, 2016 in defiance of express prohibitory orders of this honourable court, made respectively in suit numbers, FHC/ CS/ 613/ 2016 and FHC/ SUS/637/2016 on May 12 and 16, 2016, and by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), High courts judgements on suits number FTC/HC/1443/2016.
“We also seek that the court make an order dismissing this action for reason of ex-facia illegality represented in the title of the action and their admission of those who are behind the use of the name of PDP as plaintiff in this action that their authority to represent the political party and to invoke its cooperate personality is contested and requires validation by this court’s orders, which they seek.
“Also that this suit be dismissed by reason of ex-facia illegality as the right sought to enforce this action and the assumed personal rights of Markafi and Ben Obi and other members of the Illegal CTC which they lead and not at all the cooperate right of the PDP.
“And finally, for such ancillary and inconsequential orders as this court may deem fit to make in the circumstances,” he said.
He expressed confidence on the grounds of the application, the affidavits and exhibits annexed in the documents and urged the court to grant his application and remove the name of PDP from the suit.
Earlier, the plaintiff had insisted that the three processes be dismissed for incompetence, but the court overruled the position and upheld them.
But in his ruling, the judge upheld the application filed by the defence for amendment, saying that striking out the processes would delay quick determination of the suit and strengthen the power of technicality in legal battle.
“In which case where no application is filed to set aside the irregularity or was not filed timeously, the court might view the party to have weaved his right to complain.
“Where however an application to set aside have been properly filed, the court has a range of options in the exercise of his discretion either to set aside the process, wholly or partially or the order amendment subject to cause of amendment.
“In the instant case, the plaintiff has not shown what prejudice it will suffer if the motion to amend the defect is granted, more so that this being a political case in which a major political party is battling with its life, which calls for conscientious efforts to address the legal conflict expeditiously.
“I think to strike out the processes filed will roll back the entire proceedings to the beginning, and this will signal the triumph of technicality and tragic expense of substantial justice.
“In the like of the above analysis, I dismiss the motion to strike out the three processes filed and grant the application for amendment.”
He recalled that Justices Idris J. and Buba J. of the Federal High courts in Lagos had made earlier orders on this matter, adding that Justice Buba J. in his order warned that no election should be conducted into the office until the matter before him was disposed of.
Quoting Idris, the judge also said, “Do not take steps that will affect the rest of the action before him.” The ‘rest’ he interpreted as the conduct of the National Convention of the Party. While the FCT High court stated that the tenureship of Modu-Sheriff’s Executives will run till 2018.”
He described as share expertise illegality for people to conspire to subvert the orders of the court and urged the court to grant his application and make an order to remove the name of the PDP from the suit.
Responding to the application, the plaintiffs said Markafi and Ben Obi are not parties in the matter but the PDP, and that the issue of the legality of the Port Harcourt convention is the main subject matter of the suit as contained in the originating process.
He admitted that the Abuja court noted that the Modu-Sheriff’s tenureship would continue till the end of 2018, but stated that it (the court), also stated that it is dependent on the conduct of election by the party into the office of the chairman.
“Justice A. D. Mohammad in his judgement stated that Modu-Sheriff’s tenure is not until 2018, but pending the election into the vacant office of the chairman of PDP.”
He noted that by the statement, the court automatically declared the office of the chairman party vacant.
Laminkoran also recalled that the judgement of the court equally ruled that the Port Harcourt convention which the plaintiff (Sheriff), sought to stop cannot be stopped and that the notice of the convention cannot be set aside.
He noted that the same relieve Sheriff sought for in Abuja was the same thing he canvassed for at the Lagos court, describing it as abuse of court process.
