The obvious tardiness on the part of the Olusegun Mimiko group in checkmating the Biyi Poroye-led faction of the Ondo State Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) may have become its undoing as the two antagonistic camps look up to the court for possible resolution of the lingering dispute arising from the party’s parallel primaries.Eric Ikhilae reports
Many had thought the dispute between the Ali Modu Sheriff-led National Executive Committee and the Ahmed Makarfi-led Caretaker Committee (CTC) over the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was a national affair, with less implication for its states chapters.
This perception, perhaps might have informed why the Olusegun Mimiko camp of the PDP in Ondo State paid scant attention to the cases that were pending before the Federal High Court in Abuja until businessman, Jimoh Ibrahim appeared on the scene.
What later informed the decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to substitute that candidate of the Mimiko camp, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), for Ibrahim, who emerged from the primary conducted by the opposing camp, began like a child’s play.
It was ignited by a suit filed shortly after the May 2016 zonal congresses of the party. The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/395/2016 was filed by the Chairman and Secretary of the PDP in Ondo State – Prince Biyi Poroye and Ademola A. Genty and their counterparts from other Southwest states, who emerged from the May 10, 2016 congresses of the party in the Southwest.
The pliantiffs, in the suit filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja, with INEC and PDP as defendants, sought among others, to be confirmed as the authentic leaders of the party in the region and for INEC to deal with them as it relates to the submission of candidates’ names for elections in the zone.
Trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, in a judgment on June 29, 2016 affirmed Poroye, Genty and others, who emerged from the May 10, 2016 congresses of the party in the South west, as the authentic leaders of the party in the Ondo, Ekiti, Oyo, Osun, Ogun and Lagos states.
The judge ordered INEC to only accept the names of the candidates sent by the plaintiffs as actual candidates of the party for governorship elections in the affected states.
Shortly after, members of Sheriff-led NEC filed a case before the Federal High Court, Abuja on July 1, 2016. The Sheriff-led NEC was incidentally sacked by a July 4, 2016 judgment by Justice Mohammed Liman of the Federal High Court, Port-Harcourt, which affirmed the legitimacy of the party’s controversial May 21, 2016 National Convention held in Port-Harcourt and the dissolution of the Sheriff-led NEC.
In the July 1, 2016 suit instituted by their lawyer, Babs Akinwumi, members the Sheriff-led NEC sought to know the implication of an earlier judgment given on May 18, 2016 by Justice A. B. Mohammed of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Jabi, Abuja on their leadership of the party.
The Sheriff-led NEC, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/464/2016, with INEC, PDP and members of the Makarfi-led CTC as defendants, raised a sole question for the court’s determination. It was whether, in the light of the judgment of Justice A. B. Mohammed in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/1443/2016 given on May 18, applied Section 223 of the Constitution, the defendants were not under obligation to deal with them on all issues relating to the leadership of the party until a valid election was held by the PDP to replace its leadership?
The suit decided by Justice Mohammed,nd on which the Sheriff-led NEC now based their suit, was filed by a member of the party, Chief Emeka Dibia, who claimed to be interested in contesting the National Chairmanship of the PDP and wanted to know when the seat would be vacant, in view of the alteration made to section 47(6) of the party’s constitution.
Dibia had, in his originating summons, stated that Adamu Muazu was elected with other national officers of the party at a special convention on December 10 and 11, 2014 for a tenure of four years, which will expire in 2018. And that at the convention, the party also amended section 47(6) of its constitution by substituting the phrase “pending the conduct of election to fill the vacancy” with a new phrase “to serve out the tenure of the officer,” who resigned before the expiration of his/her tenure.
He added that with the sudden resignation of Muazu before the end of his tenure and the appointment of Ali Modu Sheriff in his place, Sheriff was expected to serve out what was left of Muazu’s tenure, going by the amendment to section 47(6) of the party’s constitution.
He urged the court to declare illegal the “notice of congress dated March 15, 2016 referenced: PDP/DOM/GF/1/Vol III/590 by which it (the party) scheduled its national convention on May 21, 2016 for the purpose of electing its national officers, whose four year tenures are still running and subsisting.
In his judgment, Justice Mohammed held that although all national officers of the party enjoy four-year term upon election, such could not be extended to Sheriff, who was not elected. He added that the purported amendment to section 47(6) of the party’s constitution, that would have allowed Sheriff “serve out” Muazu’s tenure, was invalid because the amendment was not reflected in the constitution as required.
Justice Mohammed further held that Sheriff would only remain in office “pending the conduct of election to fill the vacancy” created with Muazu’s exit.
Justice Abang later gave his judgment in the suit by the Sheriff-led NEC, affirmed its leadership of the party and voided the party’s national convention held in Port-Harcourt on May 21, 2016 on the ground that it was held in violation of two orders by Justice Ibrahim Buba and Mohammed Idris of the Lagos division of the Federal High Court in suits FHC/L/CS/613/2016 and FHC/L/CS/637/2016.
In a third suit by two members of the PDP from Ondo and Edo states – Benson Akingboye and Ehizuwa Agbonayinma – FHC/ABJ/439/2016, Justice Abang also affirmed the leadership of the PDP by the Sheriff-led NEC.
Akingboye and Agbonayinma had claimed to be interested in contesting election under the party and sought to know from the court which, between the Sheriff-led NEC and Makarfi-led CTC, was the authentic leadership of the party.
In a ruling on June 30, Justice Abang dismissed the Makarfi-led CTC by holding that “it is my view that having regard to the subsisting orders of the Lagos division of this court dated 12th May 2016 and 20th May 2016 respectively, the PDP had no lawful authority to hold the convention it purportedly held on 21th May 2016 that led to the emergence of Senator Makarfi-led Caretaker Committee.
“The convention that led to the emergence of the Senator Makarfi-led Caretaker committee was illegally convened, having regard to the subsisting orders of the Lagos division of this court dated 12th May 2016 and 20 May 2016. The PDP could not have pretended that the orders do not exist.
“Except the orders of the Lagos division of this court dated 12th May 2016 and 20th May 2016 are set aside by the appellate court, PDP could not have lawfully or legally held the convention that purportedly led to the emergence of the Senator Makarfi-led caretaker committee of the PDP.
“The Port-Harcourt convention held on 21st May 2016 was unlawfully held and the caretaker committee was unlawfully and illegally appointed and cannot lawfully take decisions on behalf of the PDP,” Justice Abang said.
And yet in another case filed by Jimoh Ibrahim marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2016 Justice Abang held that the Sheriff-led NEC was the authentic leadership body of the party. Ibrahim, who had by then emerged as a candidate of the Sheriff-led NEC backed Poroye state executive in Ondo) urged the court to order INEC to accet him as the party’s candidate.
Apparently buoyed by the judge’s subsequent pronouncements, Poroye, Genty and others, who were favoured by the June 29 judgment, went back to court, with a post judgment application, accusing INEC of acting in contempt of court by accepting the name of Jegede (who emerged as a candidate of the Makarfi led CTC backed Mimiko camp), as against their candidate, Ibrahim.
They said the post-judgment application was informed by INEC’s refusal to accept their candidate, as directed by the court in its June 29 judgment.
The plaintiffs said INEC was aware that the judgment of the court relate to five other states where the general elections would hold in 2019 and is in good position to understand the implications of the judgment for Ondo State where elections would hold in 2016, but chose to ignore the obvious implication.
They added that INEC was also aware that the judgment was predicated upon the May 19, 2016 letter of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the PDP, which was addressed to it (INEC), confirming to it that Pororye and Genty are leaders of the authentic state Executive Committee of the party in Ondo State.
In the post-judgement ruling on October 14, Justice Abang ordered INEC to accept Ibrahim as the PDP candidate for the forthcoming election in Ondo scheduled for November 26. He held that INEC was without any reason not to accept the candidate submitted to INEC by the plaintiffs.
The judge noted that not only did INEC participate in the proceedings leading to the June 29 judgment, it was not on record that the judgment has been appealed. Justice Abang, who also noted that since INEC did not contest the case and appealed the judgement, wondered why it chose not to obey it.
“INEC knew that issues were not joined by parties on the date of the election, but issues were joined by parties as regard who INEC was ordered to deal with exclusively during the plaintiffs’ tenure as executive officers.
“As for PDP in Ondo State, the purport of the order ?of court being that any election conducted by INEC during the applicants’ tenure in office, INEC has no choice than to accept the list of candidates from the instant judgment creditor applicants herein,” the judge said.
Justice Abang ordered INEC to “accept and process for the purpose of its functions and activities in the organisation and conduct of the Ondo State governorship election only the nomination of Barrister Jimoh Ibrahim Folorunso, who emerged from the primary election conducted by the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/applicants, as candidate of the 2nd defendant (PDP) in the said Ondo governorship election.”
He also ordered INEC to “reject and jettison any other nomination from(s) submitted to it by any other person(s) apart from the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/applicants, indicating that no other person, apart from Barrister Jimoh Ibrahim Folorunso, is the candidate of the 2nd defendant for the Ondo State governorship election.”
In compliance with the October 14 order by Justice Abang, INEC, on October 27 replaced Jegede with Ibrahim, with a caveat that it would effect further charges should there be counter orders from the other appellate courts.
Jolted by the sudden turn of event, the Mimiko camp raced to the Court of Appeal, filing multiple appeals against the various decisions by the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Some of the appeals are: CA/A/402/2016 filed in the name of PDP against Benson Akingboye and 2 others; CA/A/551/m/2016 filed by Ahmed Makarfi and another against Biyi Poroye and 10 others CA/A/551A/m/2016 by Clement Faboyede and another against Biyi Poroye and 10 others.
There are also appeals Nos: CA/A/402/2016 filed in the name of PDP against Benson Akingboye and 2 others; CA/A/402A/2016 /2016 also filed in the name of PDP against Benson Akingboye and 2 others and CA/A/464/2016 in the name of PDP against Ali Modu Sheriff and 9 others. Two other appeals marked CA/A/551B/2016 and CA/A/551C/2016 are by Jegede.
Indication that the request by the appellants for accelerated hearing of the appeals might suffer setbacks emerged at the early stage when, for unexplained reasons, authorities of the Court of Appeal disbanded a panel earlier constituted to hear the appeals shortly after it (the panel) had sent out hearing notices to parties.
Another panel, it was learnt was promptly constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa. Swiftly, the Justice Jumai Sankey – led panel set to work, with the determination to render judgments in all the appeals in at most, two weeks, a position the Sheriff/Poroye/Ibrahim camp was not comfortable with.
Before the Justice Sankey led panel could commence hearing, scheduled for November 1 and 2, the Sheriff/Poroye/Ibrahim camp had fired two petitions to the President of the Court of Appeal, demanding the disbandment of the panel, alleging that it had been compromised by the Miimiko camp.
Parties had returned to court on November 1, with the Mimiko camp hopeful of a favourable outing, only to be taken back later when the panel announced its withdrawal from the cases. Shortly after the day’s proceedings commenced, a court official called one of the appeals by Jegede, only for Justice Sankey to disclose that a petition had been written against the panel, containing many allegations, including claim that members of the panel were induced to act in favour of the appellant.
When the panel sought the views of Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who represented Eyitayo, the lawyer said he was embarrassed by the petition. He condemned it and asked that the panel should proceed to hear the case in view of the fact that time was of the essence.
Olanipekun urged the Justices not to succumb to an attempt to intimidate them. He suggested that the petitioner should be handed to security agents for interrogation and that the outcome of the investigation should be made public.
Lawyer to Pororye and eight other members of his Executive in Ondo PDP, Alex Iziyon (SAN) distanced himself from the petition. He said he was not informed by his clients that a petition was being authored.
Iziyon surged members of the panel not be bothered by the antics of politicians, who have chosen to turn the court into a football, that they could play around as it pleases them.
He told the court that a similar petition was written “by the other party against the trial judge at the lower court. They cannot now complain because they are now at the receiving end.
“These are politicians. The court should not be played around like a football by politicians. I have come to do my case according to law,” Iziyon said.
After listening to lawyers in the case, the panel rose briefly, only to return about 30 minutes later to announce its withdrawal.
“Ordinarily, since no facts have been placed before this court formally, to show a likelihood of bias on the part of the panel, and since learned Senior Advocates for the petitioner and first respondent has disassociated himself from the petition, we would have been minded to continue with the hearing of these appeals.
“This position will accord with settled law on bias against a judge on the basis of which his recusal is sought. It is that a judge, upon such a mere allegation, should not simply throw in the towel and abandon the case. “Such an attitude has been described as an abdication of judicial responsibility. It is the duty of the judge to consider the facts placed before him to find out if they are not just spurious and whimsical, but discloses a reasonable basis that there is a real likelihood of bias.
“Even though this petition has fallen short of showing any likelihood of bias, nonetheless, we consider it more desirable to recuse ourselves at this stage in respect of all appeals and applications connected to the Ondo State governorship election.
“All the files in this regard are now sent back to the Honourable President of the Court of Appeal for re-assignment,” Justice Sankey said in a short ruling.
The following day, Justice Bulkachuwa constituted a fresh three-man panel head by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa to hear the appeals.
At the panel’s inaugural sitting on November 4, it was confronted with two sets of applications from the Sheriff/Poroye/Ibrahim camp. The first set consist of those calling for the reversal of Justice Bulkachuwa’s decision to constitute a fresh panel and the disbandment of the panel
It is part of the appellant’s contention that Justice Bulkachuwa violated their right to fair hearing when she decided to constitute a special panel to hear the appeal solely based on the representation by the appellants that the appeals required urgency.
They argued that since the appeal relate to pre-election decisions, there was no urgency, except the urgency claimed by the appellants was intended to deny them (the applicants) justice.
The second sets of application seek among others, a stay of further proceedings in respect of some of the appeals relating to the question of who could take decision for the PDP, pending the determination of an appeal now before the Supreme Court.
Before adjourning on November 4, the Justice Saulawa-led panel agreed to hear all preliminary applications on November 7 and rule on the application for stay of proceedings.
