A Federal High Court in Abuja has reserved judgment in a suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), its Chairman, Bamanga Tukur and 11 others against factional Chairman of the PDP, Abubakar Baraje, former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar and other executive members of members of the breakaway faction.
Justice Elvis Chukwu, after listening to parties adopt their final written addresses yesterday, told them a judgment date will be communicated to parties.
Yesterday, parties adopted their final written addresses in relation to the originating summons and preliminary objections filed by Baraje, Sam Sam Jaja and former Osun State Governor, Olagunsoye Oyinlola.
Adopting Baraje’s written argument on the preliminary objection, his lawyer, Ahmed Raji (SAN)urged the court to decline jurisdiction over the suit.
He claimed that the case was in relation to the domestic affairs of the PDP, which is not justiceable.
He urged the court to confine itself to the questions as framed by the plaintiffs in their originating summons. And ignore attempt to make it seem the court could exercise jurisdiction over the case.
Raji argued that the questions posed and reliefs sought by the plaintiffs, simply showed that the main contention is who the truly elected leaders of the party are.
On point of law, Raji argued that the court could not assume jurisdiction over the case solely because a federal agency, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was made a party.
He argued that the law was that the subject matter of a suit confer jurisdiction on the court and not parties.
He claimed that under Section 251 of the Constitution, a complaint must be made against the action of a federal agency before the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction could be activated. He noted that in this case, no complaint was made against INEC.
Responding, plaintiffs’ lawyer, Tochukwu Onwubufor (SAN) urged the court to assume jurisdiction on the ground that the suit merely asked it (the court) to interpret certain provisions of the nation’s Constitution, the Electoral Act and the PDP constitution.
He argued that irrespective of the claim, once any of the parties in a suit was a federal agency, the Federal High Court was the proper forum for the hearing of such a case.
Counsel to Sam Jaja, Robert Clarke (SAN) also prayed the court to decline jurisdiction on the ground that the suit was incompetent and not properly constituted.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Abubakar vs Yar’Adua, he argued that by identifying the 2nd to 13th defendants in more than one name each has robbed them of their juristic personalities.
Clarke argued that it was wrong for the plaintiffs to have sued the said defendants by their names and their designations.
He urged the court to dismiss the case on the no “effectual order or orders could be made in relation to the claims before the court.”
Oyinlola lawyer’s E. R. Enukpoeuo, described the case as an abuse of court process. He claimed that some of the defendants were also major parties in a similar case before the Lagos State High Court.
He urged the court to dismiss the case
On Clarke’s argument, Onwubufor argued that since the law does not recognise the designations with which the 2nd to 13th defendants were described in the suit, the argument by Clarke should be discountenanced.
He denied Enukpoeuo’s argument that the case was an abuse of court process.
Adopting his final address on the originating summons, Onwubufor urged the court to grant his client’s prayers and discountenace the defendants’ counter arguments.
Raji, Clarke and Enukpoeuo, who filed joint counter affidavit urged the court to dismiss the suit.
PDP, Tukur and others are by the suit, seeking among others, to restrain Atiku, Oyinlola, Sam Jaja and others from laying claim to being executive members of the PDP.
