The Federal High Court in Uyo, Akwa Ibom state has declared that
the crisis that bedeviled the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, before
the Judgement of the Supreme Court, affirming the National
chairmanship of Alhaji Ahmed Makarfi, was enough justification for
a lawmaker to defect from the PDP, without losing his seat.
Hon Justice Fatun Riman, while delivering Judgement in the suit
brought before the court by the Peoples Democratic Party and 4
others, asking the court for an injunction restraining, Hon
Emmanuel Ukoete from parading himself as the member representing
Oruk Anam/Ukanafun Federal Constituency in the House of
Representatives having publicly announced his resignation of
membership of the PDP, under whose platform he was elected into the
National Assembly, said that the member was justified in the
prevailing situation then to defect to further his political career
elsewhere.
The PDP had in an originating summons, brought pursuant to Order
3 Rule 8 and 12 of the Federal High Court Rules urged the court to
declare that the 1st Defendant, Hon Emmanuel Ukoete has lost his
membership of the House of Representatives with effect from 19th
January, 2017, when he announced his defection from the PDP to the
APC. The court process also sought a declaration that the 2nd
Defendant, Hon Dogara, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
should declare the seat of the member representing Ukanafun/Oruk
Anam Federal constituency vacant.
The Plaintiffs pegged their prayers on the interpretation of
Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, as amended. Citing different authorities, the plaintiff
counsel, led by Goddy Umoh Esq, maintained that the defecting
lawmaker had no justification in law to defect from the platform on
which he was elected without losing his membership of the National
Assembly and called on the court to so hold.
The 1st Defendant Counsel, led by a former Attorney General of
Akwa Ibom state, Mr. Victor Iyanam, pursued his defence on two
major planks. The defence played up the issue of the propriety in
law for the plaintiffs to bring the summons in their capacities as
state party actors. The Defence argued that the court lacked the
requisite jurisdiction to even entertain the suit because,
according to him, the proviso in Section 68 (2) constituted a
condition precedent for the activation of the provisions of Section
68 (1) (g). The Defence Counsel noted that it was the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that had
the powers to initiate the action anticipated in the section being
relied on by the plaintiffs, and wondered where the plaintiffs got
the necessary Locus Standi to bring the matter to the court.
The court, ruling on this preliminary matter of jurisdiction
held that the issue raised was “peripheral” to the main issue and
as such could not be relied on to arrive at the substantive justice
of the case. The court noted that Section 68 (2) may not have
anticipated the likelihood of the issue being raised in court,
adding “I do not agree that section 68 (2) was meant to create a
condition precedent”. The court thereafter dismissed the
preliminary issue raised by the 1st Defendant.
On the issue of interpretation of Section 68 (2) (g), the court
held that that section was clear on the vacation of the seat by a
defecting lawmaker. But noted that what was required was to
determine what constitutes a division, or factionalisation as
envisaged in Section 68 (1) (c) of the constitution.
After appraising the crisis that engulfed the PDP, which the
defence had highlighted, the court held, rejecting the attempt by
the PDP to draw conclusion from the Supreme Court Judgement on the
crisis, that the party was sufficiently riddled by crisis, which
left it factionalised. It therefore held that as at the time the
defection took place, the lawmaker was justified to defect, without
losing his membership of the House, based on the existence of
factions, which he agreed was capable of jeopardizing the political
future of the Honourable Member.
Hon Justice Fatun Riman, subsequently dismissed the suit for
lack of merit.
Appearance in Court were Goddy Umoh Esq, leading Ekemini Udim,
Ini Ememobong, for the Plaintiffs and Aniekan Udofia Esq, with
David Augustine for the 1st Defendant.
The Federal High Court in Uyo, Akwa Ibom state has declared that
the crisis that bedeviled the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, before
the Judgement of the Supreme Court, affirming the National
chairmanship of Alhaji Ahmed Makarfi, was enough justification for
a lawmaker to defect from the PDP, without losing his
seat.
Hon Justice Fatun Riman, while delivering Judgement in the suit
brought before the court by the Peoples Democratic Party and 4
others, asking the court for an injunction restraining, Hon
Emmanuel Ukoete from parading himself as the member representing
Oruk Anam/Ukanafun Federal Constituency in the House of
Representatives having publicly announced his resignation of
membership of the PDP, under whose platform he was elected into the
National Assembly, said that the member was justified in the
prevailing situation then to defect to further his political career
elsewhere.
The PDP had in an originating summons, brought pursuant to Order
3 Rule 8 and 12 of the Federal High Court Rules urged the court to
declare that the 1st Defendant, Hon Emmanuel Ukoete has lost his
membership of the House of Representatives with effect from 19th
January, 2017, when he announced his defection from the PDP to the
APC. The court process also sought a declaration that the 2nd
Defendant, Hon Dogara, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
should declare the seat of the member representing Ukanafun/Oruk
Anam Federal constituency vacant.
The Plaintiffs pegged their prayers on the interpretation of
Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, as amended. Citing different authorities, the plaintiff
counsel, led by Goddy Umoh Esq, maintained that the defecting
lawmaker had no justification in law to defect from the platform on
which he was elected without losing his membership of the National
Assembly and called on the court to so hold.
The 1st Defendant Counsel, led by a former Attorney General of
Akwa Ibom state, Mr. Victor Iyanam, pursued his defence on two
major planks. The defence played up the issue of the propriety in
law for the plaintiffs to bring the summons in their capacities as
state party actors. The Defence argued that the court lacked the
requisite jurisdiction to even entertain the suit because,
according to him, the proviso in Section 68 (2) constituted a
condition precedent for the activation of the provisions of Section
68 (1) (g). The Defence Counsel noted that it was the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that had
the powers to initiate the action anticipated in the section being
relied on by the plaintiffs, and wondered where the plaintiffs got
the necessary Locus Standi to bring the matter to the court.
The court, ruling on this preliminary matter of jurisdiction
held that the issue raised was “peripheral” to the main issue and
as such could not be relied on to arrive at the substantive justice
of the case. The court noted that Section 68 (2) may not have
anticipated the likelihood of the issue being raised in court,
adding “I do not agree that section 68 (2) was meant to create a
condition precedent”. The court thereafter dismissed the
preliminary issue raised by the 1st Defendant.
On the issue of interpretation of Section 68 (2) (g), the court
held that that section was clear on the vacation of the seat by a
defecting lawmaker. But noted that what was required was to
determine what constitutes a division, or factionalisation as
envisaged in Section 68 (1) (c) of the constitution.
After appraising the crisis that engulfed the PDP, which the
defence had highlighted, the court held, rejecting the attempt by
the PDP to draw conclusion from the Supreme Court Judgement on the
crisis, that the party was sufficiently riddled by crisis, which
left it factionalised. It therefore held that as at the time the
defection took place, the lawmaker was justified to defect, without
losing his membership of the House, based on the existence of
factions, which he agreed was capable of jeopardizing the political
future of the Honourable Member.
Hon Justice Fatun Riman, subsequently dismissed the suit for
lack of merit.
Appearance in Court were Goddy Umoh Esq, leading Ekemini Udim,
Ini Ememobong, for the Plaintiffs and Aniekan Udofia Esq, with
David Augustine for the 1st Defendant.