A LAST minute rally by seven Governors to salvage the candidacy of Governor Timipire Sylva of Bayelsa State for a second term on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP failed, yesterday, as a meeting with President Goodluck Jonathan was inconclusive.
The botched move by the governors on behalf of their embattled colleague came as a Federal High Court to which Sylva had sought recourse to enlist him as the PDP candidate in the forthcoming gubernatorial election in Bayelsa State deferred further considerations on the matter. Also, yesterday, a motion in the House of Representatives seeking to abort the deployment of the military in Bayelsa State failed.
Governors who escorted Sylva to yesterday’s meeting with President Jonathan included Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State, Sule Lamido of Jigawa State, Jonah Jang of Plateau State, Liyel Imoke of Cross River State, Ahmed Abdulfatai of Kwara State, Saidu Dakingari of Kebbi State and Patrick Yakowa of Kaduna State. The meeting came barely 24 hours after President Jonathan charged the leadership of the PDP not to be intimidated by anybody on account of their actions in the recent gubernatorial primary election in Bayelsa State.
The NWC had excluded Sylva, the incumbent Bayesla governor from last Saturday’s primary election to pick the party’s candidate for the scheduled governorship election holding next February. Following the meeting with the President, Sylva who was the first to come out from the meeting which took place in the First Lady’s Wing of the Presidential Villa declined to speak to anxious reporters. He passed over the responsibility to Governor Amaechi, the Chairman of the Governors’ Forum.
“My Chairman, Governor Amaechi will speak to you. I think my Chairman will tell you that. He is the only one authorized to talk to you. Chairman of the Governors’ Forum will talk to you,” Sylva clad in a white trouser with red and white striped long sleeve shirt said when asked about the outcome of the meeting. But depicting the disappointment of the visitors, Amaechi was in no mood to answer questions as he angrily dismissed State House Correspondents who pressed him for enquiries on the outcome of the meeting as he passed over that duty to Governor Lamido of Jigawa State.
The following is the brief exchange between him and reporters:
What are you here for?
Don’t I have right to visit the President?
Did you meet with the President to discuss Governor Sylva’s issue?
I’m not aware of that. Don’t interview me because I don’t know what you are talking about.
What are you here for then?
To see the President about Rivers State.
And you came with your counterparts from other states?
They came to see the President on their own state matters.
What is so pressing that all of you came together?
We didn’t come together. We came differently.
What did you discuss with the President?
Why should I tell you about what I came to discuss about Rivers State?
The failed mission was further manifested by the break up of the Governors into smaller groups outside the meeting venue before they proceeded to the Jigawa State Governor’s Lodge in Asokoro for further talks. Meanwhile a motion seeking the removal of armed troops from Bayelsa State in the House of Representatives sponsored by the Minority Leader, Mr. Femi Gbajabamiala was thrown out by the House yesterday.
Gbajabiamila’s
motion
Gbajabamiala raised the motion barely five minutes into the commencement of the plenary yesterday upon a constitutional order that the Federal Government violated provisions of Section 217 sub section 2b of the constitution of the Federal Government of Nigeria. Gbajabiamila had gone ahead to read the provisions of Section 217 which states A(1) There shall be an armed forces for the Federation which shall consist of an army, a navy, an air force and such other branches of the armed forces of the Federation as may be established by an Act of the National Assembly.
(2) The Federation shall, subject to an Act of the National Assembly made in that behalf, equip and maintain the armed forces as may be considered adequate and effective for the purpose of (a) defending Nigeria from external aggression; (b) maintaining its territorial integrity and securing its borders from violation on land, sea, or air; (c) suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore order when called upon to do so by the President, but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly; and (d) performance of such other functions as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
He had argued that the deployment of troops which he claimed has led to the militarization of the tiny oil state is unconstitutional as he said that due consultation was not made with the National Assembly. The Speaker, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, however, asked the Minority Leader to read Section 218 of the constitution.
Gbajamiala immediately obliged. Immediately he finished reading Speaker Tambuwal called for a voice vote on the motion. The response was a thunderous nay. The Speaker nevertheless sent a message to the executive arm against committing what he described as such seeming slights of the National Assembly in its deployment of the military.
PDP appeal stalls Sylva’s suit
Meanwhile legal moves by the embattled Governor of Bayelsa State, Timipre Sylva, to get a Federal High Court in Abuja to nullify the gubernatorial primary election that was conducted in the state by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, on November 19, suffered a major set-back yesterday. Though presiding Justice Gabriel Kolawole on November 16, ordered all the parties in the matter to appear before him yesterday to show cause why the prayers of the plaintiff should not be granted, however, the case could not go on as scheduled owing to an interlocutory appeal that was lodged before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal by the PDP.
Resumed
hearing
At the resumed hearing on the case, the party, which was represented by its national legal adviser, Chief Olusola Oke, urged the trial judge to respect judicial hierarchy and hands-off the suit since a higher court is already seized with the facts of the case. The party argued that it is trite law that once an interlocutory appeal is entered before a court of higher jurisdiction, the lower court is left with no option than to stay further proceeding on such matter.
The position of the PDP was further accentuated by counsel to the Acting National Chairman, Abubakar Kawu Baraje, who was equally joined as the 3rd defendant in the matter, Mr Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, who also urged the court to stop further hearing on the suit forthwith. Though counsel to the Independent National Electoral commission, Mr I.K Bawa, told the court that he was yet to receive a copy of the said notice of appeal, however, he raised no objection to the PDP application.
Earlier in his submission, counsel to the plaintiff, Chief Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, lamented that PDP only served him with a copy of its notice of appeal right inside the courtroom.
He told the court that though his client was not happy with the procedure adopted by the party in the matter, nevertheless, he has decided not to object to the application for stay of proceeding. He said: “my lord, barely ten minutes before you came in, we were served with a number of processes by the 2nd defendant (PDP). My lord, the processes include, record of proceedings from this court, containing some processes in this case including a ruling they (PDP) said they are not aware of. They also filed in the Court of Appeal a stay of proceedings dated 21st November 2011 and a Notice of appeal with the same date.
“The path of law and honour is that since this matter having been entered at the Court of appeal and with the motion for stay pending, the battle ground shifts to the court of appeal. So we pray your lordship to allow the matter move to your senior brothers. But let me note that it is interesting the speed at which the PDP got the CTC of the proceedings and the speed with which the PDP travelled to the court of appeal. I hope they will use the same speed to pursue their appeal. It is the only path of honour which we have taken and hope they will also take instead of denying service as they had done earlier.”
While granting the restraining order, trial justice Kolawole had warned that, “in the event, perhaps, unlikely that the 2nd defendant (PDP) in defiance of these orders, take steps which may be prejudicial, perhaps subversive of these orders and of these proceedings before the return day which I have fixed at 22/11/2011, this court will without much ado, proceed to making such necessary orders to nullify such steps or decisions taken once they are served with the processes and/or orders made herein in order to uphold and protect the sanctity of the court’s processes and to vindicate the integrity of the court as the established constitutional arbiter between the state and the citizens and between the citizens inter se.”
However, the PDP in its preliminary objection to the order, pleaded the appellate court to determine whether the lower 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”.
Written
address
In its written address, PDP insisted that, “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.”
Just as it argued that “Jurisdiction 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.”
Governor Sylva had in his substantive suit, beseeched the court for “an order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies or howsoever called from forwarding a fresh name or governorship aspirant to the 1st Defendant when the Plaintiff is still alive and has not withdrawn his candidacy for the governorship election of Bayelsa State, pending the determination of the suit.
And in the alternative, “an order of interim injunction mandating the Defendants, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or howsoever called to publish the name of the plaintiff as an aspirant for the 19th November, 2011 governorship primaries in Bayelsa state or any governorship primary election schedule for Bayelsa State, on any date which the Defendants may choose pending the determination of the substantive suit.”
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com