Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, don yarn say African Democratic Congress, ADC, no get any business for Supreme Court for di first place. According to am, e say there was no decision from Federal High Court wey dem fit appeal.
Di lawyer explain say di court say put dem on notice, and dem go court of appeal without obtaining leave because na interlocutory appeal. Di court of appeal come tell dem say go back and hear your case on di merits in full. But Maduabuchi say di court of appeal overstep by making order wey nobody ask for.
E yarn say for law, courts no be Father Christmas; dem no dey give you wetin you no ask for and wetin you no merit. But somehow, di court of appeal, while making proper decision say there was no valid appeal, now take step further to say maintain status quo. Dat one, according to Maduabuchi, na wrong.
E say if there is no podium wey you fit stand, you no fit sprint and you no fit spring. Once di court say there is no valid appeal before dem, e suppose wash im hands off di matter. And dat one na di only appealable point wey fit move from court of appeal to Supreme Court. Dat na why every other thing dem bring to court na im Supreme Court dismiss.
But dat main point, say di court of appeal no get power or jurisdiction to make order wey no party ask for, na im Supreme Court properly make. Still on ADC, Maduabuchi say we get to look at am from INEC perspective. Di court of appeal say maintain status quo ante bellum. We remove ante bellum and just concentrate on status quo. Dem no be di same tin.
Status quo ante bellum mean before commencement of hostilities. When INEC, acting on order of court of appeal, remove David Mark, dem dey on solid ground because di order na to maintain status quo ante bellum, not status quo. If dem say maintain status quo, wetin dem mean na stay where you dey, no move.
When dem vilify di chairman of INEC because e remove David Mark, Maduabuchi assure say if di law na only perspective tin, e depend on how you see am. But if e know, status quo ante bellum mean before wetin bring you to court occur, before commencement of hostilities. So when Joash Amupitan, as lawyer and professor of law, remove David Mark, e only dey obey di law.
Now, Supreme Court don say di court of appeal was wrong; e don restore David Mark. But Maduabuchi say we no go give am accolade for being subject to rule of law. Dat na our problem. Public officers dey always criticised, but we no dey give dem accolades when dem deserve am. Two court orders wey no give any advantage to INEC, and e obey dem promptly.
If Maduabuchi talk on PDP, e say di PDP judgement settle issue of factionalisation and who be proper leaders of PDP. E settle am conclusively. E no know why we dey concentrate on dis judgement regarding Ibadan Convention. Ibadan Convention no be wetin take people to court. Wetin take PDP to court na who be proper and valid rulers or officials of PDP.
Ibadan Convention simply tangential to di whole tin, and we no seem to concentrate on judgement of Supreme Court. Wetin Supreme Court say about di other faction, di Sam Anyanwu faction, wey e completely obliterate, di Supreme Court point on am by saying you no be members of di party. You no get right to speak for di party. Any tin wey you don do, whether for terms of money, any letter you don write, di March 12th Convention na im dem remove.
If dat one don remove by Supreme Court, wetin e mean na say dese people no be members of PDP. Di members of PDP na di Turaki members, those wey dey back Turaki. Maduabuchi say one tin courts no tolerate na defiance of im orders. For law, when you raise issue of jurisdiction, di court take am first, but there be exception. Where issue of contempt or defiance of court dey involved, you keep jurisdiction aside and determine first whether di court defy.
When Supreme Court say, if e give more broad explanation, di two groups, both majority judgement and minority judgement, agree say dis tin na internal affairs of political party. But di majority now take step further to say, but dat tin happen, wetin dem do, dem do am for defiance of court order. Di other group no ready to go dat extra mile to say dem do am for defiance of court order. But dis one say no, even though na di affair, dem do am when there be valid, persisting order, binding dem, debarring dem from conducting di convention. And dat na di position of law.
Now dat Supreme Court don say go back to high court, where di originating summons be before di court. For oder matter, for court of Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, wey Norman Obinna and oder persons from di states bring, don dat one now render academic, or e still dey living matter? Maduabuchi say no, e na living matter because judgement don render. Judgement render by di court where e think say there be certain decisions reach. Dat na di judgement wey set aside all state congresses and where dem remove di state chairman.
Of course, e say na valid judgement, and di court act within im jurisdiction. If you affect by am, you take next step to court of appeal. Wetin dey before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik na who take over leadership of ADC when Ralph Nwosu resign. Di Gombe man dey say, I suppose take over. But di oder group dey say, no, we meet di NWC, dem resign, and dem appoint us as di authentic leaders. Dese be two different issues.
Di issue of wetin happen for state different from who dey occupy position at national level. Dis one go continue. Maduabuchi bet say di David Mark tin go back to Supreme Court again. Talking about outcomes or next steps for ADC, e say now dem get to go back to Federal High Court. But there be issue of time, especially when you look at INEC timetable.
Wetin e go say to ADC? Should di members continue to pursue dis at Federal High Court, bearing mind di time factor? Maduabuchi say dat na political decision, no be law decision, and e discuss law here. But if e be dem, e go see how e fit settle dis internally. Dem don already inflict di wound upon demself. Go and put somebody on notice. You run to Court of Appeal. From Court of Appeal, you run to Supreme Court. And dem dey complain about time.
Wetin dem suppose do na call Gombe. Gombe, wetin be your problem? And every time you dey say na APC. You want APC to feed you? E no see how you fit expect APC to dey make you stable so dat you go strong to oppose dem. When e dey do case, even against any of im good friends, e look for im greatest weak point and exploit am. Dem look for im own weak point and exploit am. When dem come out, dem start smiling and laughing, oh boy, I deal with you today. Dat na di way dese tins work.
ADC no fit dey give advances to APC, and den dem complain say APC dey destabilise dem. You know say dis tin na question of time, and you allow Gombe, you allow your state chairmen go to court, keep you busy. Dat na one tin people know, dem keep you busy, you no dey organise, you dey chase shadows, di oder one dey move. And by 30th you no go fit present candidate. By 30th, you no sure say you don come back from Supreme Court. On dese two cases, and more, there be more cases pending. So, when you behave naively politically, you no blame anybody. Dem suppose explore how to make people no go court. How many people dey court for APC? How many? Because dem don sort demself out and put dem tins for order. E no be law issue now, you entitle to go court, you entitle to go on appeal.
Who INEC suppose listen to? Na Joyce Abdulmalik judgement, or David Mark judgement? Dat number one. Number two, Maduabuchi want go back to PDP. E say Turaki be di authentic ones. Really? Na so? Dis now dey confusing. If e understand dese tins properly, because e no dey for ADC cases, wetin dey before di oder judgement by di state chairman na say dem tenure don expire. So, if di tenure don expire, and court say, yes, your tenure don expire, e different from saying, who be national chairman of PDP, wey dey pending before Abdulmalik.
And if Supreme Court say, go and determine dat issue, di question of who be state chairman for Enugu state where e come from get nothing to do with who be national chairman of di party. INEC, for purposes of national chairmanship, must listen to Supreme Court. There be no oder valid order saying maintain status quo or no status quo, because nobody ask for am, e invalidly make, and there be no valid appeal upon which di court of appeal fit act. So, go back and do your work. INEC know those wey dey on di platform, and dem bring back David Mark. So, di two be parallels wey no fit meet. David Mark case different from dat of national chairman. E no know if e make imself clear.
Can di national chairman go now with dem own judgement to INEC and say, dis na our own judgement, we want claim leadership of di party since dem get judgement wey no appeal? Supreme Court no decide di issue of leadership. Di only tin Supreme Court remove na status quo. Di main issue still dey High Court. Now, if suit dey pending, and there be authentic judgement of court, e must obey. Does dat mean di state government chairman fit go to INEC with dat judgement and say, activate for us? Of course. At end of day, if Judge Abdulmalik deliver im own judgement, all of dem go come. Dat na when options go dey available to INEC, to decide which of di judgments e want pick.
Maduabuchi quickly talk about Turaki. E say remember there be two appeals. E no know why people forget am. One argue by Paul Erokoro. One argue by Chris Uche. Di Paul Erokoro appeal allow. There be appeal by Sam Anyanwu group. Dem obliterate dem. Dem tell dem, my friend, you get no business with PDP. You don expel. You don expel. So, dat put paid to Wike faction completely. Now, if no Wike faction, there be only Turaki faction left. Supreme Court say, dat tin wey bring Turaki as national chairman, na invalid. E no mean say PDP as body don remove, or e in any way affect. Na Turaki as leader, as chairman, with all im National Executive Committee and National Working Committee, wey dissolve. But PDP as party, as we know am as party today, still intact. And na dat group wey produce Turaki wey be PDP of today because, you go back to di known, wey be Damagun. Dem sprout from Damagun and hold di Convention. Dem nullify di Convention, but dem no nullify di fact say di authentic National Working Committee and National Executive Committee of PDP na Damagun head. So, whoever originate from Damagun, whichever group now belong to Damagun, na di authentic PDP on ground.
Maduabuchi comment on oder matter where Attorney General of Federation and INEC be defendants. Di issue bring by plaintiff, di incorporated trustees of former national legislators, to effect say certain political parties, Accord Party, ZLP, Labour Party and ADC, no meet constitutional threshold under section 225A of amended constitution, and say INEC suppose de-recognise dem. Wetin e think go be implications of dis, whichever way determine, for political process? E say e get to be careful here, because di matter still pending. E no suppose comment on am. But e go just say dis. E go ask two questions: one, wetin be locus of those wey bring di matter? Forum of Former National Legislators. You no be political party, you no want run on left. Wetin be your business? You no say you want run election. You no say your position take by dem. How you suffer anything above and more than any ordinary Nigerian? Dat na wetin we mean by locus standi. Wetin be dem locus? Second, and more importantly, before you fit say somebody no meet law, you must look at validity of dat law. Why you dey ask court today to deregister political parties because dem no comply with law, wey say you must get elected officers and so on and so forth. But di same constitution amend dis year. Di constitution of last year no be di constitution of dis year. When di constitution say unless you do so and so, you look at when dat law take effect, wey be when president sign di amendment into law. From dat day wey president sign dat amendment into law, we hold election? If we no hold election, which law den dem flout? You no fit go back to law wey don amend and drop. Di current constitution of Nigeria no be dat of last year. Di constitution wey dem go flout na when election hold under di current constitution. Den you fit go court and say dis suppose deregister. But you no fit amend law and den still want punish me. Even if di provisions be di same, e now become question of efficacy. When e become effective? Di law become effective di day di new constitution, di one we dey use today, become effective di day president sign di amendment. Any infraction must be after dat signing, no before.
Do you have a news tip for NNN? Please email us at editor @ nnn.ng
