Court Overrules Objection To Anambra PDP Tussle
FROM CHUCKS COLLINS, ONISHA
AN Ogidi High court, presided over by Justice Ernest Okey Egbuna, has dismissed the objection raised by the acting state chairman and secretary of PDP, Ifeatu Obiokoye and Rueben Okpaloka, respectively, that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case brought against the party by some members of the oparty in the state.
The men had, through their counsel, Mr N.C Nobis-Elendu objected to the court hearing the case, insisting it was pure a party affair.
Three members of the party's state executive, Chief Ogugua Nwosu (Financial secretary) and Princess Chinwe Onyesoh (state women leader) had on July 1,2004 obtained an injunction stopping the PDP, its national chairman, Audu Ogbe, Gov Chris Ngige and three others, including the fifth and sixth defendant, from holding any meeting without inviting them.
The defendants however objected to the court entertaining the suit, saying it was an internal party matter.
However, in his ruling, Justice Egbuna struck out the objection, stating it was premature and misconceived. He relied on sections 27I and 272 of the 1999 constitution, adding that Governor Chris Ngige was sued in his capacity (as evidenced even in the affidavit).
He also ruled that the argument that PDP (party) matters were internal party matters was wrong, especially where they allegedly took actions seen to be infringing on the rights of some members; that Section 11 of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria makes the Constitution supreme and binding on all other laws and authorities in the country, including PDP and its constitution.
The judge also noted that the PDP constitution was not law but a mere code of conduct for members which cannot bar members from seeking intervention of court where necessary.
Article 16 of PDP constitution, he said, cannot supersede the nation's constitution, hence, in the views of the court above constitute the rights which the fifth & sixth defendants (Obiokoye and Okpaloka) allegedly attempted to infringe on and is therefore wrong to claim that it is an internal affairs of the party.
The court also ruled that the plaintiffs did not claim that they were wronged by the fifth and sixth defendants, saying it is a case of deciding and enforcing a person's right as enshrined in the constitution of the federation and cannot therefore be said to be internal party matter.
Hearing of the substantive suit has been fixed for August 16,2004.
