PLATEAU
PDP DENIES CONDUCTING FRESH ELECTIONS IN KANKE.
- MOTION
ON NOTICE ADJOURNED TO NOVEMBER 14TH FOR RULING.
By
Emmanuel Atabat
Thursday,
12th October, 2017
The Peoples Democratic
Party (PDP) has denied conducting fresh elections in Kanke LGA of Plateau state
Nigeria.
Recall that Hon Tapwa
Kumbut Goma on behalf of himself and others has dragged Hon DT Sango, the state
PDP Chairman and the party to court alleging that the state chairman has
refused to recognize him and other EXCO members in Kanke. While the case was still ongoing, Sango was alleged to have facilitated the conduct of fresh elections and sworn in new
EXCO members in Kanke in disregard to a court injunction restraining him from
that act. The PDP through its Counsel N.I. Darong Esq. told Justice Nanpon
James Dadi, Thursday last week that no elections have been carried out by the
party and no new EXCO have been sworn in. This came after ruling of the court
was delivered and counsel to the Plaintiffs L. E. Anyia Esq. in readiness to
move the motion on notice said, “The motion on notice is ripe for hearing and
we are ready to move same. However, I want to draw this court’s attention to
the fact that in spite of the filing of interlocutory application to restrain
the defendants from conducting an election and/or swearing of EXCO for the 2nd
defendant in Kanke LGA in this case, as well as a sister case No: PLD/P45CV/2016, the defendants have
gone ahead to organize an election and swore in a new EXCO and not the plaintiffs and which is
the basis of the two cases and the application to restrain”.
Responding, Barr Darong
said, “No Election have been conducted by the defendant and no new EXCO as a
result have been sworn-in as alleged”.
Consequently, the court
granted that the motion on notice be moved.
Counsel to Plaintiff said
motion on notice No: PLD/P44CV/M1/2016, dated the 21/12/2016 was filed the 22/12/2016 and
prays the court for an order of interlocutory injunction, restraining the
defendants/respondents either by themselves, their servants, agents, privies
and/or any other person how so ever described from swearing in anybody
howsoever and whatsoever described or occupying such office which is the
subject matter of this suit pending the determination of this suit.
And for such further
order(s) as this court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
He said that in support of
the application is an affidavit of 26 paragraphs and a further affidavit of 9
paragraphs adding that he relied on both affidavits and the exhibits attached
thereto, particularly in the first affidavit. Counsel added that “also in line with the
rules of this court, we have filed written addresses in support of the motion
on notice and the further and bather affidavit. We adopt the said addresses as
our arguments in support of the application and urge the court to grant the
said application. We have been served with a counter affidavit; we urge the
court to discountenance the counter affidavit as the depositions therein are
hanging on air. We urge the paragraph 3 has not rebutted the averments made by
the applicants. I urge the court to grant this application”.
However, in urging the court
to refuse the grant of the application, Counsel to defendants N.I. Darong Esq.,
said the respondents have filed a counter affidavit of six (6) paragraphs, as
well as three exhibits, marked as Exhibits A, B and B1 respectively and said
and further placed reliable on all the depositions in the counter affidavit as
well as the accompany exhibits. He said “I submit that courts do not determine who
the officials of a political party are or how the political party runs its
affairs. I urge the court to resist this temptation of running the affairs of
the part. I refer this court to the case of Ehinlanwo Vs Oke (2008) 16 NWLR, Pt 1113, P.357 at 402-403, paras G-F,
as well as 414, paras F-H. The applicants have not situated the application
that merits this courts interference. We urge the court to discountenance the
written address of the applicant to the further and better affidavit to the
extent that the legal presumption that the first lawyer on the list signs a
process does not avail this process because the name of L.E. Anyia is not
contained on the Nigeria Bar Association stamp affix to the document and
thereby offends Rule 10 of the Rules of professional conduct”. Consequently, he
urged the court to dismiss this application and order for accelerated hearing
in its stead.
Responding, Counsel to
plaintiff urged the court to distinguish the case cited and relied upon by the
learned defense/respondent counsel from this case in issue adding that the principal
issue in the case cited is the right of a political party to sponsor a
political party candidate which is not the case here and urged the court to
discountenance the objection and grant the application stressing that, “because
of the antecedents of this case, an order of interlocutory injunction is
necessary”.
Justice Dadi adjourned to the 14th
day of November, 2017 for Ruling on the motion.
Post a Comment