Advertisement

To ensure a successful primary on May 28, the National Secretary of the PDP, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, on Thursday, asked Justice Donatus Okorowo of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, to hands-off the suit seeking to halt the scheduled presidential primary election of the party.

Anyanwu, in a petition he forwarded to the Chief Judge of the Court, Justice John Tsoho, accused Justice Okorowo of bias.

Advertisement

The PDP scribe, through his lawyer, Mr. Kalu Agu, urged the CJ to transfer the case to another judge of the high court for fair adjudication.

He alleged that Justice Okorowo granted ex-parte orders against the party, notwithstanding the fact that PDP has a legal representative before the court.

Anyanwu, listed as the 3rd defendant in the suit lodged by an aggrieved pesidential aspirant of the party, Mr. Cosmas Ndukwe, contended that processes the trial judge relied on to summon PDP to appear before him to show cause why reliefs sought by the plaintiff should not be granted, was not ripe for hearing as at the time the order was made.

Advertisement

He, therefore, maintained that the judge had, by his actions, exhibited “manifest bias”, adding that allowing him to continue with the case, will lead “to a breach of fair hearing.”

Alternatively, he applied for stay of further proceedings in the case, pending the outcome of the petition before the CJ.

Counsel to the plaintiff, Mr. Paul Erokoro, SAN, opposed the application which he described as an abuse of court process.

In his bench ruling, Justice Okorowo declined to halt proceedings in the matter which he adjourned till May 25 for hearing.

Advertisement

The court equally granted an application that another presidential aspirant of the party, Mr. Mohammed Hayatu-Deen, filed to be joined as the 5th defendant in the matter.

The plaintiff, Ndukwe, a former Deputy Speaker of the Abia State House of Assembly, had in an application he brought before the court, sought an order of injunction to restrain his party from proceeding with its scheduled primary election, pending the hearing and determination of his suit challenging the position of the party on the issue of zoning its presidential ticket.

Though the court declined to grant the restraining order, it directed the plaintiff to put all the Defendants on notice to enable them to appear before it to show cause.

Advertisement

In its swift objection to the suit, PDP, aside from challenging jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/508/2022, argued that the case had become status barred.

According to the defendants, “the cause of action in the suit relates to the internal affairs of a political party and therefore falls within the doctrine of political questions which are non-justiciable” and as such,, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.

PDP, noted that the cause of action arose from a communique its National Zoning Committee issued on April 5, whereas the plaintiff’s suit, was filed on April 19, 15 days after, in violation of Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provides for 14 days for filing of such cases.

The party maintained that the court lacked the vires to delve into its internal affairs, stressing that the subject matter of the case, which borders on whether to zone its presidential ticket to any part of the country or not, was not an issue that the court was constitutionally empowered to adjudicate upon.

It, therefore, urged the court to vacate its earlier order that directed it to show why reliefs the plaintiff is seeking in the suit should not be granted.

(Vanguard)