Supreme Court fixes date for hearing in PDP leadership tussle

By Miracle Ogunde

March 10 has been fixed for the hearing of an appeal filed by the embattled National Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party, Samuel Anyanwu.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed the date.

At Tuesday’s proceedings, Njemanze represented Anyanwu, while Paul Erokoro appeared as the first respondent. Joshua Musa (SAN) announced his appearance for the second and third respondents, while Okwudili Anozie also rose to represent the second respondent.

Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, who presided over the five-member panel, noted the duplication of counsel for the second respondent. Addressing the issue, Justice Saulawa remarked, “What of Dr Musa that is representing the 2nd and 3rd respondent”?

“You people should sort yourselves out. The court cannot and will not by any means get into the issue of choosing a counsel for a party.”

Musa noted that there seemed to be a mix-up but clarified that the PDP National Chairman, who is the third respondent, had mandated him to represent both himself and the party.

He said, “I have a letter from him to represent both him and the party”.

The court however resolved by asking Musa to lead since he is senior to Anozie while Anozie was recorded as appearing counsel alongside him for the second and third respondents.

Moving forward, Njemanze prayed to the court for an accelerated hearing of the appeal. He informed the court that the appellant’s brief of argument was filed on February 4.

In response, Musa indicated that his clients had filed a notice of non-contestation on February 5, stating they would not oppose the appeal.

See also  No Plans To Scrap TETFund – FG

Erokoro, however, said he had yet to file and requested until Friday to file his brief of argument.

The court directed all respondents to file their briefs of argument by Friday and the appellant to file a response by Monday.

The matter was adjourned to March 10 for the hearing of the appeal.

Anyanwu, in a ten-ground appeal filed through his counsel, Ken Njemanze (SAN), is challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, delivered on December 20, 2024, that affirmed the judgment of the High Court, which removed Anyanwu from office as the PDP National Secretary and recognized Sunday Udey-Okoye.

Dissatisfied with the majority decision of the Court of Appeal, Anyanwu approached the Supreme Court to set aside the appellate court’s judgment.

Anyanwu in the appeal argued that the appellate court erred in law when it upheld the trial court’s jurisdiction over a matter that dealt with the internal affairs of the PDP.

He contended that issues related to party leadership and membership are non-justiciable and fall outside the jurisdiction of any court.

Additionally, the appellant criticized the lower court for failing to rule on whether the plaintiff (Emmanuel) had complied with the mandatory internal dispute resolution mechanisms stipulated in the PDP constitution before filing the suit.

Anyanwu also faulted the court’s decision for holding that the plaintiff has locus standi to Institute the case, asserting that such issues are fundamental to the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

The appellant further contended that the lower court erred in interpreting Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022, arguing that he neither resigned nor was he removed from his position as National Secretary.

See also  Ondo police refutes phone theft allegation against officers

He emphasized that the PDP constitution outlines specific procedures for vacating executive offices, which include removal or resignation.

He also argued that Article 47 of the PDP constitution provides for a four-year single term for party officers, and there was no basis for the concurrent findings of the lower courts that deemed him to have vacated his office.

Anyanwu disagreed with the lower court’s characterization of him as a “political appointee,” stating that party officers are not public officeholders unless elected to public office or appointed to a political position.

Among other grounds, the appellant prayed the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment, and award the cost of the appeal against the respondents.


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

UK to Increase Visa Fees in 2025, Raising Costs for Travellers, Students, and Workers

Robbers Fleeing Crime Scene in Nasarawa Die in Road Crash, One Arrested

Meet Harold Ekeh: The Nigerian Who Gained Admission into All 8 Ivy League Universities

INEC Flags Missing Contact Details in Senator Natasha’s Recall Petition

Diaspora NIN enrolment surges by 308% as FG eases registration process

Lagos to install 3,000 smart cameras for traffic control

UK to Increase Visa Fees in 2025, Raising Costs for Travellers, Students, and Workers

Robbers Fleeing Crime Scene in Nasarawa Die in Road Crash, One Arrested

Meet Harold Ekeh: The Nigerian Who Gained Admission into All 8 Ivy League Universities

INEC Flags Missing Contact Details in Senator Natasha’s Recall Petition