The Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside the orders made by the Federal High Court, Abuja barring three chieftains of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from further attending any meeting of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) or participating in deliberations or proceedings of the meetings in any manner.
The PDP chieftains are the party’s former National Chairman, Uche Secondus, sacked Rivers State Governor, Celestine Omehia and a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Austin Adiele Opara.
In three separate judgements yesterday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the appeals filed by Secondus, Omehia and Opera for being meritorious.
The appellate court held that the issues of whether members of a party should attend the party’s meetings or participate in any of its activities are issues to be determined by the political party.
The court was of the view that issues relating to whether or not members of a political party attend the party’s meetings being internal affairs of the party, are not justiciable and on which the court lacked jurisdiction.
It held that the Federal High Court ought not to have entertained the cases because it lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the suits dealing with issues within the realm of the internal affairs of the political party.
The Court of Appeal proceeded to declare null and void the proceedings conducted in the three cases before the Federal High Court, voided same, including the restraining orders made ex-parte by the court on April 5.
The Federal High Court made the orders in its decisions in the separate suits filed by three members of the PDP in Rivers State.
The suit against Secondus and the seven others was filed by Titus Jones. The suit against Omehia and five others was filed by Precious Wobisike, while the third against Opara and seven others was filed by Chisa Amadi.
In his lead judgment in the appeal by Secondus, marked: CA/ABJ/CV/522/2024, Justice Jimi Bada said: “It suffices to say that the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to attend the meetings of the party having been suspended or no longer a member of the political party are issues for the political party and its members to resolve, not that of the court.
“The totality of the questions put forward for determination by the court in the plaintiff’s case, as contained in the originating summons, borders on the suspension of the membership of the first respondent (Secondus) and invoked the question, whether the first respondent, having been suspended as a member of the party, could attend the meetings of the party.
“Undoubtedly, it is not an issue that can be determined by the court, being a non-justiciable matter, a matter within the domestic fold of a political party and the internal matter of the second respondent (the PDP) best suited for determination by the political party.
“In short, the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate on it. The lower court lacked the jurisdiction to bar a member from attending meetings of a political party or restraining the party from issuing notices of meetings and invitations to a member.”
On whether the trial court acted lawfully in issuing the April 5 ex-parte restraining order, Justice Bada held that the ex-parte order ought not to have been granted because there was no urgency shown by the plaintiff to warrant the grant of such an order without hearing from those against whom the order was directed.
Justice Bada added that since the substantive suit and the ex-parte motion bordered on who has the right to attend the meeting of a party, the issue of who is or not a member of a party is a matter within the domestic affairs of a political party.
He proceeded to hold that “having resolved all the issues, nominated for determination, against the respondents and in favour of the appellant, this appeal succeeds.
“The lower court lacked the vires and jurisdiction to entertain the substantive action and, by extension, grant the ex-parte order.”
Justice Bada then declared the proceedings of the lower court in respect of the substantive suit and the ex-parte order granted null and void, and proceeded to set them aside.
The appellate court made similar findings in the appeals marked: CA/ABJ/CV/520/2024 and CA/ABJ/CV/521/2024 filed by Opera and Omehia.
