THE Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has upturned the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, which dismissed the objection raised by Mr. Julius Abure, challenging his removal as National Chairman of the Labour Party (LP).
The court also imposed a fine of N1million on the respondents.
On May 13, last year, Justice Hamza Muazu of the FCT High Court had dismissed Abure’s preliminary objection after a ruling on an ex-parte application that restrained him and three others- Farouk Ibrahim, Clement Ojukwu and Oluchi Opara- from acting as national executives of the party in the suit, marked CV/2930/2023, and instituted by Martins Esikpali John; Lucky Shaibu; Isah Zekeri; Omogbai Frank; Abokhaiu Aliu; Ayohkaire Lateef; John Elomah and Ayobami Arabambi.
The plaintiffs told the court that the defendants forged several documents of the court to carry out unlawful substitutions in the last elections.
But Abure, through his Counsel, Mr. Alex Ejesieme, filed a preliminary objection against the suit, saying an allegation of forgery against his clients could not be brought before the court by way of an originating summon.
Ejesieme alleged that the plaintiffs were not members of the LP and therefore lacked the locus standi to institute the suit, as the matter borders on the internal affairs of the party, which the court cannot interfere with.
However, Justice Muazu held that the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter, even though it relates to the party’s internal affairs, saying there would have been no need to interfere had the party been at peace.
He added that the plaintiffs were right to have instituted the case by originating summons and subsequently restrained Abure and his executives from acting as national officers of the party.
Dissatisfied, Abure appealed the judgment, seeking determination whether the lower court was right in dismissing his preliminary objection to his removal national chairman.
In the lead judgment on Wednesday, March 6, Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, held that Abure’s appeal was meritorious and set aside the earlier judgment of the lower court.
Justice Barka held that the process applied by the lower court was incompetent, as it wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the case, adding that issues bothering on forgery, perjury and conspiracy are unproven and deals with serious issues of fact; hence the suit should not begin with an originating summon.
The Judge also held that the lower court was wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of the political party, noting: “The party is in its own right, supreme over its affairs. The court will not enforce its own will over that of the political party.”
The court also held that no ward executive had the power to suspend a national officer of a political party dully elected by the national delegation, insisting that such powers are exclusive to the national body.
Justice Barka, therefore, ruled that the appeal has merit; hence set aside the decision of the lower court.
