The internal wrangling in the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) assumed a confusing dimension with the November 6 judgment by the Court of Appeal, Abuja. The appellate court had, by the judgment, voided an earlier decision by the Federal High Court, Abuja, sacking former Osun State governor, Olagunsoye Oyinlola as the party’s National Secretary.
The confusion created by the latest judgment further polarised the party in view of the inability of its leadership to devise an ingeniously way of managing the situation that resulted from the judgment.
While the pro-Oyinlola camp, comprising mainly those in the new PDP are insisting that the former Osun State governor should be allowed to resume office by virtue of the appellate court’s judgment, the leadership of the core PDP argued otherwise, thereby creating what appears a stalemate.
With both camps sticking to their positions, the situation may persist until the Supreme Court decides the appeal now initiated by the Ogun State PDP against the November 6 judgment.
The journey to this deadlock began last year with a dispute within the Ogun chapter of the party, between a camp controlled by former President Olusegun Obasanjo and another loyal to controversial businessman, Buruji Kashamu.
With the help of the court, the Buruji Kashamu camp triumphed and took control of the party’s leadership, leading to its installation of an executive council (with Adebayo Dayo as chairman and Semiu Sodipo as secretary).
While the Kashamu camp was in court, and despite an order by a Federal High Court in Lagos directing parties not to take any further steps, but await the outcome of a suit challenging the process adopted by the Ogun PDP in choosing its delegates for the then impending Southwest zonal congress, the Southwest leadership of the party proceeded to hold the congress in March, last year in Osogbo, Osun State.
The congress produced many Obasanjo’s loyalists as the party’s national officers, including Oyinlola as National Secretary, Bode Mustapha as National Auditor and former Ekiti State governor, Segun Oni as Deputy National Chairman, Southwest.
The Kashamu camp proceeded to challenge the conduct of the congress and urged the court to void it, a prayer the Federal High Court in Lagos granted. Also in another case, the court equally held that the Southwest congress was wrongly held.
Armed with two judgments, the Dayo-led exco of Ogun PDP urged the court to proceed to sack those who became the party’s national officers by virtue of their nomination at the voided congress. Oyinlola immediately appealed the judgments before the Court of Appeal, Lagos. But surprisingly, the Bamanga Tukur-led national leadership of the party later withdrew the appeal initiated by Oyinlola in Lagos.
Having found that the congress was wrongly held, the now sacked Justice Charles Achibong of the Federal High Court, Lagos proceeded to sack Mustapha and ordered his replacement by a nominee of the Dayo-led exco. In Abuja, a similar incident played out when on January 11, this year, Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati of the Federal high Court, Abuja sacked Oyinlola.
The plaintiffs in the suit in Abuja – Dayo and Sodipo (chairman and secretary of Ogun PDP) – had prayed the court to determine “whether the candidacy of Oyinlola as a nominee of the South West Zonal Chapter of the PDP and his consequent election to the office of National Secretary at the National Convention in March 2012 were not invalid, null and void by reason of the order and judgments of the Federal High Court made respectively on April 27, 2012 in suit no FHC/L/CS/282/2012 and May 2, 2012 in suit no FHC/L/CS/347/2012 nullifying the South West zonal congress of March 2012 from which Oyinlola emerged or ought to have emerged?”
Although Oyinlola and the PDP objected to the court hearing the case by challenging the plaintiffs’ locus standi, the court’s jurisdiction, and arguing that the issues raised were within the party’s internal affairs, Justice Abdulkafarati held in favour of the plaintiffs.
Oyinlola appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal, Abuja; an appeal the appellate court decided on November 6 and voided the appellant’s earlier sack by the trial court.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja held that the judgment which the Federal High Court, Lagos relied on to remove Oyinlola was not binding on him because he was not a party in the suit. It further held that the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, was null and void because Oyinlola was denied fair hearing in the suit the Lagos court relied on to sack him.
The appellate court also held that the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, could not stand because the suit which led to the order was a multiplicity of action and therefore constituted an abuse of court process. It noted that the suit was the third one filed by the plaintiffs to enforce the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which nullified the Southwest zonal congress.
The court also observed that Oyinlola had already filed a motion for stay of the Lagos judgment at the Court of Appeal, Lagos, as at when the Dayo-led Ogun PDP exco filed the suit which culminated in the Justice Abdulkafarati’s judgment of January.
In the appeal it filed at the Supreme Court on November 7, the Dayo-led Ogun PDP faulted the November 6 decision by the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
The Ogun PDP, represented by Dayo and Sodipo, wants the apex court to sustain Oyinlola’s sack by reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the ground that the appellate court erred in its decision. It has also prayed the apex court to stay execution of the Court of Appeal judgment pending the determination of its appeal.
In a notice of appeal, the appellant raised four grounds of appeal. It argued that the appellate court erred in law when it overturned and set aside the January 11 judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, sacking Oyinlola.
It argued that the Court of Apeal failed, in its judgment, to realise that it lacked the jurisdiction to invalidate/nullify the order made by Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/282/2012 “when there was no appeal against that order before it.”
The party contended that, in reaching its decision, the appellate court went on a voyage of discovery because there was no appeal or valid complaint against that order before it in the appeal.
It argued that the order made by Justice Abdulkafarati was made within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court in order to restore its ability to deal with the substantive issues raised in the case.
The appellant stated that the order was also meant as a punishment for breach of its interlocutory order by respondents in the case, and in that context, was a final order in respect of which Oyinlola could have appealed as an interested party (even though not a party to the action) since the order tangentially affected his interests as a nominee of the invalid South West congress that was nullified by that order.
It argued that “the Court of Appeal, Abuja went beyond the remit of its powers under the Constitution and the Court of Appeal Act when it decided to sit on appeal over the order made in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/282/2012 when the appeal filed against the said order had been withdrawn and struck out by the Lagos division of the court”.
The appellant further contend that the appellate court misdirected itself on the facts when it found that there were other cases filed to enforce the order made in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/282/2012 and then proceeded to conclude that the suit decided by Justice Abdulkafarati was an abuse of process.
To the appellant, the finding of the Court of Appeal was contrary to the evidence on the record before it and could only have been a product of speculation.
The party argued that the appellate court erred in law when it held that the suit was an abuse of process. It contended that there was no evidence before the court that there were other actions brought between the same parties.
The appellant also argued that the Court of Appeal erred in law when it found that Oyinlola had filed an application for stay of the order (made in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/282/2013) at Court of Appeal Lagos division when the suit to enforce the said order was filed and prosecuted.
The party contended that the decision of the appellate court on that issue was “a perverse finding of fact as it was based on no evidence and was in fact contrary to the evidence admitted by the 1st defendant (Oyinlola) in the record before the Court of Appeal”.
