Political Parties Subject To Fair Hearing

In the High Court of Ogun State in the Abeokuta Judicial Division Holden at Abeokuta on February 9, 2011 before his Lordship: Honourable Justice A. 0. Jibodu

Suit No AB/166/2010

1. Chief Joju Fadairo

2. Chief M A. Bankole

3. Chief Pegba Otemolu

4. Mrs. Kemi Adeyemi

5. Zaddeu Ahmed

6. Mr. Wale Adeyanju

7. Mr. Muyiwa Sodade

8. Alh. Mukhtar Ajayi

9. Mrs. Olasupo Modupe

10. Chief Dele Ogunbanjo

11. Agboola Alausa                         Plaintiffs

12. Chief J. Akinola

13. Mr. Kayode Sunmola

J4. Hon. Johnson                              Akinyemi

15. Hon. Boye Adesina

16. Alh. Sin a Awofodu

17. Hon. Ayodele Tekun

18. Alh. Okeowo Adekitan

19. Hon. Wasiu Olawunmi

20. Mr. Ranti Ogunmuyiwa

21. Barr. Iseoluwa                            Abiodun-Johnson

22. Major K Orekoya (rtd)

23. Mr. Leke Adekoya

24. Alh. Isiaka Amodemaja

25. Alh. Iyabo Adeniran

26. Mr. Sewanu Bankole

And   (Defendants)

1. Dr. Okwesi!ieze Nwodo (National Chairman, PDP)

2. Alh. Abubakar Baraje

(The National Secretary, PDP)                                               3. Alh. Tajudeen Oladipo (National Vice-Chairman PDP South-West Zone)

4. The Peoples Democratic Party

Jurisdiction is the pivot of any valid adjudication by a court and without it, the entire proceedings would amount to a futile exercise. In order to determine this all important issue of jurisdiction, it is pertinent to determine what the main claim of claimants is.

So held by Judge of High Court of Ogun State, Justice A O. Jibodu, in the judgment he delivered while affirming that the Joju Fadairo-led faction was the authentic PDP in Ogun State.

Briefly, the case of the claimants is that on February 28, 2008, the State Congress of the PDP in Ogun State was held and all the claimants as set out on the face of the processes filed in this suit as well as in the schedule accompanying the originating summons along with three others who are not parties herein (viz:

Chief Segun Otayemi, Senator Tunde Osholake and Captain Borokini Musa – (rtd) were elected for a term of four years, in an election monitored by the INEC. The first claimant was elected as chairman of the party and the others were elected into offices shown against , their names in paragraph nine of the affidavit in support of the summons, Subsequent to the election at which the claimants were elected, on July 30, 2010, the National Secretary of PDP without reference to the claimants, issued

Exhibit PDP three to the third defendant, endorsing same to the Governor of Ogun State and the Minister of Commerce and Industries indicating the harmonisation of the Ogun State Executive Committee of PDP as in that document as “Senator Jubril Martins Kuye’s Group” and “His Excellency Otunba Gbenga Daniel’s Group,” on August 6, 2010.

According to the claimants, without reference to or hearing the claimants, the first defendant issued a letter addressed to the third defendant containing the purported dissolution of the Ogun State PDP Executive Committee. That letter is Exhibit PDP 48. Subsequent to this, the third defendant issued Exhibit PDP 4A to the Governor of Ogun State requesting him to State requesting him to forward names of his nominees to fill positions allotted to his group. The grouse of the claimant, inter-alia, is that they have been, as it were, relieved of their elective offices abruptly and without fair hearing. This is the major reason they are in court.

The position of the defendants on their part is that the PDP Chapter in Ogun State is seriously factionalised due to disagreement between different groups; and that the party through its NWC had invited members of different factions in a bid to resolve the crises without success. Pursuant to a resolution reached at a stakeholders meeting and the agreement of the NWC of the party that the factional executives were incapable of functioning democratically and effectively, the NWC dissolved what the defendants described as the factional Executive Committee on August 6, 2010 pursuant to Articles 12.63(b) and 12.72(e) of the PDP constitution (Exhibit PDPI).

Subsequently, the NWC, in the belief that its action would bring about the much desired unitv within the Ogun State PDP, harmonised the different groups within the party as contained in Exhibit PDP3. The Governor of Ogun State “ranking members” of Ogun PDP including some of the claimants were said to have been informed. The defendants are of the view that the issues presented in this suit are within the domestic purview of the party and that the claimants failed to explore and exhaust the remedies provided in Exhibit PDPI.

However, I believe that, it is better and safer for this court to err on the side of considering the defendants issues than to err on the side of failing to consider them. I will therefore consider and determine the issues formulated and raised by the defendants along with the issues formulated and raised by the claimants in the originating process. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the first issue raised by the defendants is on jurisdiction.

This is because in considering whether or not a court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the court is guided by the claim of the claimants.

Where the suit has been commenced by originating summons supported by affidavit and documentary exhibits, the trial court is to examine the originating summons and documentary exhibits to determine the issue of jurisdiction. At that stage, the court will not be concerned with the facts deposed to the counter-affidavit.

What are the claimants really aggrieved about? [ have earlier in this judgment referred to the questions raised and the reliefs sought in the originating’;· summons.

It can be deduced from the foregoing reproduced portions of the claimants processes that the bottomline of and their main grievance is that they were relieved of their elective offices in the Ogun State PDP Executive Committee without granting them fair hearing. To that extent, the central issue to determine in the substantive matter is that of fair hearing. Most of the other issues are predicated on it.

Having said that the main complaint of the claimants is on fair hearing, the question which must be considered relevant now is ­can the issue of fair hearing be subjected to or be a subject of administrative steps, internal remedies and/or domestic affairs of a political party such that the jurisdiction of a court is ousted to adjudicate on the same?

In the final analysis on the issue of jurisdiction, I associate myself with the decision of the Shuluwa case (supra) to hold that this case is not incompetent by reason of the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendants. I also hold that the hearing missed herein does not relate to the internal or domestic affairs of the PDP and as such cannot be subjected to the internal remedies of the party. In other words, this court has jurisdiction to entertain this action. This court will exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and it will guard same jealously. It goes without saying that this issue is resolved in favour of the claimants.

I reckon that issues two and three as arranged and numbered in this judgment can be conveniently considered together. Issue two is on fair hearing, whether or not the claimants were afforded same. Issue three is on the provision of Article 12.72 (e) of the POP constitution – whether or not same is unconstitutional and void.

Having held that the claimants were not given fair hearing, the consequence is that the purported dissolution of the POP State Executive Committee was not proper. It was improper.

On the issue of whether or not Article

12.72 (e) of the PDP Constitution is inconsistent with Section 223 of 1999 Constitution, I think it necessary to emphasise the provision of this section of the 1999 Constitution.

It is clear that this provision provides for the periodical election of members of the executive committee or other governing bodies of the political party. Article 12.72 (e) of the PDP Constitution, which I had earlier reproduced, on the other hand provides for the power of the NEC of the PDP to dissolve a State Executive Committee. I agree with learned

Defence counsel that these two provisions do not clash in any way Article 1272 (e) of PDP Constitution is therefore not inconsistent with Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, and I so hold. I reiterate, however, that the defendants did not invoke the said provision of the PDP Constitution properly in accordance to law in that fair hearing was not accorded the claimants.

Issue two is resolved in favour of the claimants while issue three is resolved in favour of the defendants.

The fourth issue is “whether by virtue of Article 14.1 of the constitution of the Peoples PDP 2009 (as amended), the members of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP, who were elected on February 28, 2008 are not entitled to hold their offices for a term of four years commencing from the date of their election.”

This fourth issue is resolved in favour of the claimants.

Now, have the claimants made out a case to justify the grant of the reliefs sought by them in the originating summons? Following the foregoing reasoning in this judgment, I am of the view and I so hold that the claimants have made out a case to justify the grant of reliefs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 sought by them in the originating summons (leaving out reliefs 3 and 7 which are not granted); and this court hereby makes the following orders:

• It is hereby declared that by virtue of the provisions of Article 14.1 of 1999 Constitution of the PDP, the claimants who were duly elected on February 28, 2008 as chairman and officers of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the party are entitled to hold the offices into which they were elected as set out opposite their respective names in the schedule annexed to the summons for a term of four years commencing from February 28, 2008.

• It is hereby declared that the claimants are still holders of the offices set out opposite their respective names in the Executive Committee of the PDP

It is hereby declared that the claimants who were duly elected as officers of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP on February 28, 2008 are entitled in law to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before the dissolution of the State Executive Committee is carried out pursuant to Article 1272 (e) of the Constitution of the PDP and during their tenure of office.

• It is hereby declared that thepurported harmonaisation of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP as contained in a letter dated 30, July 2010 issued by the second defendant and marked Exhibit PDP-3 herein is unconstitutional, null and void.

• It is hereby declared that the purported dissolution of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP as contained in a letter dated August 6, 2010 purportedly issued by the National Chairman of the Party is unconstitutional, null and void.

• The Defendants whether by themselves, or their servants officers and/or representatives are hereby restrained from giving effect in any matter whatsoever to the purported dissolution of the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP as contained in a letter dated August 6. 2010 purportedly issued by the National Chairman of the Party, and

• The defendants whether by themselves, or their servants officers and/or representatives are hereby restrained from preventing the claimants from performing the functions of their office or otherwise interfering in any manner whatsoever with the performance by the claimants of the functions of their offices in the Ogun State Executive Committee of the PDP.