PDP assembles legal team to tackle sylva

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has
assembled a legal team to tackle the
judicial challenge posed by Bayelsa State
Governor Timipre Sylva, who dragged the
party to court last week, seeking to stop
the primary election it held last Saturday
in Yenagoa.
At the end of the exercise, the PDP
elected House of Representatives
member, Hon. Henry Dickson, as its flag
bearer in the February 11, 2012
governorship election in the state.
THISDAY checks revealed that PDP’s
National Legal Adviser, Chief Olusola Oke,
will lead Chief Olajide Ajana, A.A. Ibrahim,
Mrs. J.O. Adesina, J.O. Mafo, Promise
Ogbadu, Debo Ikuesan and Miss Mulikat
Kilani as the party returns to court to
defend its position on the Bayelsa primary
election.
According to the court papers, PDP wants
it determined whether, “the court has the
power to grant injunction to stop the
holding of a political party’s primary
election having regard to the provision of
section 87 (10) of the Electoral Act, 2010,
as amended, and to also determine
whether it is just and equitable to stop
the holding of the primaries”.
PDP said in its written address already
filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja
that courts “are bereft of jurisdiction to
intervene in the matters concerning,
relating or pertaining to nomination of
candidate, citing the Supreme Court
judgment in the case of Onuoha vs Okafor
(1983) 2 Supreme Court Nigeria Law
Report (NLR) page 244”.
The party, according to the court papers,
also said: “Jurisdiction to do became
vested and by the virtue of section 87 (9)
of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended,
which provides thus: ‘Notwithstanding the
provisions of the Act or rules of a political
party, an aspirant who complains that any
of the provisions of this Act and the
guidelines of a political party have not
been complied with in the selection or
nomination of a candidate of a political
party for election, may apply to the
Federal High Court or High Court of a state
or FCT for redress.”
According to the party in the written
address, “this section, however,
circumstances and limits the jurisdiction
conferred on the court pursuant to
section 87 (9) above to the consideration
of the compliant presented by the plaintiff
but excludes the jurisdiction to stop the
‘holding of primaries’ or the process
thereof under this Act.”
The party further submitted that: “It is
therefore our respectful submission that
where an aspirant questions the conduct
of the primaries, section 87 (9) of the
Electoral Act 2010, as amended, gives
him the right, which was hitherto
unavailable, (See Onuoha vs Okafor
(1983) 2 SC NLR page 244) to approach
the courts for redress.
“However, by the express provisions of
sub-section 10 of the said section 87 of
the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended,
such redress does not include the courts
stopping the holding of primaries or
general election or the processes thereof
under the Act pending the determination
of a suit.
Undoubtedly, conduct of primary election
and submission of names to INEC by the
defendants is part of the election
process.”
PDP also said: “Our respectful submission
is that the provisions of the said section
87 (10) of the Electoral Act are clear, plain
and unambiguous. It is a rule of statutory
interpretation that where the words used
in a statute are plain and unambiguous,
the court is bound to construe them in
their natural ordinary sense and give
effect to the clear letters of the statute.”
The party cited the Supreme Court’s ruling
in the matter involving the Attorney-
General of Ondo State vs Ekiti State
(quoting with approval the dictum of Lord
Simmonds in Magor and St. Mellow R.D.C.
vs Newport Corporation which held that,
“It is certainly a cardinal principle of
interpretation that where in the ordinary
meaning the provisions are clear and
unambiguous, effect must be given to
them without resorting to any aid, internal
or external. It is the duty of the court to
interpret the word of the law maker as
used.”
The party added in the written response
that the relief sought must come after the
determination of the suit, adding: “A
combined reading of sections 87 (9) and
(10) must lead to the conclusion that the
redress available to a plaintiff under
section 87 (9) must come at the final
determination of his suit.”
On jurisdiction, PDP said: “Jurisdiction of
course is usually a matter of statute,
which confines, limits and circumscribes
same: George vs SBN Plc (2009) 5 NWLR
(pt 1134), p.302, 318-319; Abdul-Raheem
vs Oloruntoba–Oju (2006) 15 NWLR) (pt.
1003), p. 581, 619. Thus a court cannot
exercise jurisdiction in excess of that with
which it has been vested, and in a
manner other than that prescribed, by the
relevant enabling statute.
“The courts cannot expand the
jurisdiction conferred on them by statute,
even though they have the jurisdiction to
expound it. ITPP vs UBN Plc (2006) 12
NWLR, Pt. 995. p483, 502. In this case,
the jurisdiction of this Honourable court
to determine matters relating to the
conduct of the primary election of a
political party is created by and under
section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010,
and the manner by which such
jurisdiction may be exercise is limited by
section 87 (10) thereof.
“The courts cannot therefore expand it to
grant interim or interlocutory reliefs.”
PDP is therefore asking Justice Gabriel
Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja
to “decline jurisdiction to entertain the ex
parte application for interim injunction
and accept this, as a good cause why the
orders sought should not be granted”.
There were divergent views at the
weekend on whether the court actually
stopped the PDP from going ahead with
the primary election or not.
Former president of the Nigeria Bar
Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipekun
(SAN), said an order of court is either
granted or out right refused, adding that
not giving a definitive or a declaratory
order would always give room for
gainsaying.
Olanipekun stated that for an order of
court not to be misinterpreted, it must be
unequivocal, definite, certain and specific.
He added that anything short of this
would give room for parties in the suit and
the general public to begin to interpret to
their understanding.
The former NBA boss noted that though
Justice Kolawole is a brilliant judge, he
was not in a position to deconstruct the
order.
Toeing Olanipekun’s line of argument, an
Abuja-based lawyer, Ben Sweet, said for
an order of court to convey the meaning
of what it was meant for, it must not be
ambiguous and must be specific.
Sweet advised that since the primary had
been conducted, it should be allowed to
stand until the plaintiff has filed an
application to seek a further
interpretation of the order.
While advising the court to always uphold
the previsions of section 87 of the
Electoral Act, 2010 which prevents the
court from interfering in a political party’s
primary, he noted that it was this
provision that the PDP was tenaciously
holding on to and which it premised the
conduct of the primary on.
But human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana,
faulted the argument, saying the court
stopped the PDP from going ahead with
the primary.
Falana, in an attempt to drive home his
point, asked rhetorically: “When a court
says in the event that the PDP in defiance
of these orders take steps which may be
prejudicial, perhaps subversive of these
orders and of the proceedings before the
return day which I have fixed for
November 22, 2011 what do you think it
has done?
Is not that it has postponed the primary?
If it has postponed the primary, has it not
stopped it from holding on November
19?” On his part, Mr. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN)
said it would be proper if the courts learn
to stay away from internal affairs of
political parties.
Ajogwu noted that it was to avoid the
crises associated with court rulings on
issues concerning internal affairs of
political parties that resulted in section
87 (11) of the Electoral Act 2010.
Meanwhile, Sylva Sunday challenged the
Acting National Chairman of the PDP,
Alhaji Abubakar Baraje, to disclose his
“sins” that eventually made the party to
disqualify him as a governorship aspirant
in the just concluded primary election.
“We challenge Baraje to come out with
the reason why Sylva was illegally
excluded from the contest,” the governor
said in a statement.
In the statement issued by the Chief
Press Secretary to the governor, Doifie
Ola, responding to the utterances of
Baraje that Sylva had been told the
reasons he was excluded from the
governorship primary and that such “sins”
would be made public in due course, the
governor challenges Baraje to come clean
on these “sins”, perhaps, for necessary
“atonement”.
Ola said at no time did Baraje discuss the
so-called sins with Sylva, stating: “We are
aware that the PDP national chairman
has been giving different ‘reasons’ to
different people on the illegal exclusion of
the governor. But at last, Baraje has
exposed the fact that there was no
reason known to law and common sense
for the exclusion of the governor.
“With Baraje’s tone of voice, we fear that
after having excluded Sylva without any
justification, there is now a desperate
attempt to cook up reasons, however
untenable and tenuous, as an
afterthought.”
On the primary election where Dickson
was elected, the statement said:
“Governor Sylva notes with grave
disappointment the charade and odium
that were orchestrated in Bayelsa State
on Saturday in the name of PDP
governorship primary.”
Sylva said he and his supporters are still
in the PDP and he is still in the
gubernatorial race, while thanking the
Bayelsa people for keeping peace despite
the provocation.