Parties in the suit are 57 defecting members of PDP in the House of Representatives and 22 senators who had by way of originating summons dated September 11, 2013 approached the court for an order restraining Alhaji Bamanga Tukur (First defendant), the Senate President (Second defendant), Speaker House of Representatives (Third defendant) and the PDP (Fourth defendant) from declaring their seats vacant in the event of their defection to the APC.
But since the legal battle began, the non appearance of Tambuwal or his legal representatives had delayed proceedings in the matter as counsels to the plaintiffs and those of the defendants had complained of their difficulties encountered in a bid to effect service of court processes on the Speaker, who is joined in the suit as the Third defendant.
However, it took the intervention of Justice Ahmed Mohammed to order the court’s bailiff at the last adjournment to take over the service of the court processes on the Speaker.
Justice Mohammed had directed that such papers should be served on the Speaker on or before January 31, threatening that he knows what to do if no lawyer appears for Tambuwal in yesterday’s sitting.
At a resumed sitting, the court was not surprised as Alex Marama announced appearance for the Third defendant, just as he explained to Justice Mohammed that their non appearance in court was as a result of disagreement over legal representation for the Speaker.
Marama while being apologetic over what the delay in their appearance in court had caused in wasting the time of the court, however, informed the court that they have been able to resolve the in-house issues amicably and are now ready to proceed since they filed a memoranda of appearance within time.
“We had issues but they have been resolved amicably. Even though, we have not been able to appear in court, we have filed our memoranda of appearance within time and will be making an oral application for a short time to enable us file and serve counsels in the matter all the necessary processes,” Marama said.
Though, the other counsels thanked Justice Mohammed for fast tracking the service of court processes on Tambuwal. They insisted, however, that they need a caveat from Marama as to when exactly his processes would be filed and served on them in order not to cause another undue delay in the matter.
Consequently, Justice Mohammed granted the request, based on the assurance of Marama that all processes should be filed and served on counsels in the matter on or before 12noon, Monday 17, even as he adjourned hearing of the suit to February 18.
Earlier, Ken Ikonne, who is representing the Senate President David Mark in the suit, informed the court that he had an application dated January 20, 2014 and filed on the 21st day, seeking for extension of time to file the 2nd defendant’s memoranda of provisional appearance and a counter affidavit in opposition to the substantive suit. All parties in the suit did not oppose the application, which the court granted.
Similarly, an application dated January 21 and filed same day by counsel to the plaintiffs, Mahmud Magaji, which seeks extension of time to enable him file a counter affidavit in opposition to the First and Fourth defendants’ (Tukur and PDP, respectively) motion on notice dated December 19, 2013 was also granted by the court as counsels did not object to it.
It would be recalled that the 79 plaintiffs had filed a suit against the PDP and three others by way of originating summons dated September 11, 2013 at the Federal High Court Abuja.
The plaintiffs are seeking the following reliefs, “A declaration that the circumstance prevailing at the national level and various state chapters of the PDP (Fourth defendant) which led to factions/ divisions as witnessed at the Special National Convention of the Fourth defendant held on August 31, 2013 and holding of a parallel convention simultaneously at Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre, followed up with the emergence of new National Executive Committee constitute and qualify as crisis, faction and division anticipated under Section 68 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).
“A declaration that any of the plaintiffs or other members of the PDP who pursuant to the crisis that led to factions/divisions in the 4th defendant, joined new faction of the 4th defendant or desires to join it or another political party (individually or as a group) is/are saved by the proviso to Section 68(1) (g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended without losing his/their elective seats.
“A declaration that in view of the proviso to Section 68 (1) (g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, the First defendant or any other officer of the Fourth defendant or any person or authority whatsoever cannot declare vacant the seats of any of the plaintiffs or others members of the Fourth defendant that joined or who may desire to become members of another political party in view of the present crisis that created factions/divisions in the Fourth defendant vacant.
The plaintiffs wants an order, “restraining the Second and Third defendants from conducting any proceedings in their respective chambers aimed at declaring the seat (s) of any the plaintiffs or other members of the Fourth defendant who joined or intended to become members of another political party vacant in view of the present circumstance in the 4th defendant as vacant.
“An order restraining the Fifth defendant (INEC) from accepting nominations of any purported candidate and conducting by-election aimed at filling the seats of any of the plaintiffs or other members of the Fourth defendant who joined or may wish to become members of another political party in view of the present circumstance in the Fourth defendant”.
REF http://www.mydailynewswatchng.com/2014/02/06/tambuwal-finally-court-reps-move-apc/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tambuwal-finally-court-reps-move-apc
No comments:
Post a Comment