Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court Abuja, on Thursday, adjourned a suit by the Rivers State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party against the Department of State Service (DSS), Police, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and seven others to August 30......READ THE FULL STORY>>.....READ THE FULL STORY>>
The suit was filed by six Rivers State PDP members, namely; Hon. Aaron Chukwuemeka, who is the current Chairman, Caretaker Committee of PDP in Rivers State, Dr Benibo George, Solomon Ogbonna, Lenebari Inaania, Enia Harris and ThankGod Owhorji.
Other Defendants are the PDP, Acting National Chairman of the party, Amb. Umar Damagum, National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu and National Organizing Secretary, Hon. Umar Bature, and
the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State.
By the suit marked: FHC/ ABJ/ CS/106/12014, the plaintiffs want an order of court restraining the defendants from stopping, truncating or disrupting the conduct of Congresses for Wards, Local Governments and Rivers State chapter of the PDP.
At a resumed sitting, the trial judge, Peter Lifu, had to adjourn the matter because of conflicting legal representations by lawyers for some of the parties in the suit.
Earlier, Ken. C. Njemanze SAN, announced appearance for the plaintiffs/applicants, while Ferdinand Orbih SAN, appeared for the 1st defendant (PDP).
K.C Ajibade SAN, National Legal Adviser of the PDP, also announced legal representation for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents.
Similarly, Sunday Ameh SAN, said he appeared in court for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents (Amb Damagum, Sen. Samuel Anyanwu and Sen. Umar Bature) respectively, who he claimed were sued in their personal capacities.
Yakubu Umar represented the SSS, just as S. O Okoro, said he was a party seeking to be joined in the suit as co-defendants.
There were no appearances for the 5th to 8th defendants.
In the light of the conflicting legal appearances, Orbih applied for an adjournment to enable the senior lawyers sort out the issue of legal representation.
All the lawyers did not oppose the plea for an adjournment.
Meanwhile, ruling on the issue, Justice Lifu, held that based on the agreement of counsel and for justice of the matter, he was minded to grant an adjournment to receive the final report on the issue of conflicting legal representation.
The judge stated that if the meeting of counsel in question cannot resolve the issue of legal representation before the next adjourned date, the affected counsel should file affidavit of facts and written addresses.
More so, the court, based on the request of Njemanze, extended the life span of the ex parte order pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
Also, the judge ordered that all pending motions would be heard on the next adjourned date of August 30.
The scheduled congresses are to elect new officers that will run the affairs of the PDP at the wards, LGs and State levels of PDP in Rivers State.
The Congresses are to also elect adhoc and national delegates as specified in the constitution, guidelines, adjusted timetable and scheduled of activities 2024 .
The court had on July 23, 2024, granted an ex-parte application brought by the six members of the PDP mandating the acting national chairman of the party, Ambassador Iliya Umar Damagum, National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu and National Organizing Secretary, Hon. Umar Bature to proceed with the conduct of the Congresses as scheduled by PDP.
The judge however, ordered the PDP and the three National Officers to adhere strictly and honour the provisions of the guidelines, adjusted timetable and scheduled of activities 2024 duly issued and published pending the determination of a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed along with the motion ex-parte.
Justice Lifu also restrained PDP and the three National Officers from allowing any person who did not obtain nomination form or adhoc form within the time stipulated in the guideline from running for any elective office of PDP or adhoc or national delegates position pending the determination of the motion on notice already filed.
In granting the request of the six PDP members who filed the motion ex-parte, the Judge ordered them to enter into a fresh undertaking to indemnify the defendants to be assessed by the Court if by the end of the day, the Court discovered that it was misled into granting the restraining orders.
