Party denies court’s power, vows to go on with exercise

SURELY, he is fighting the biggest political battle of his life now and firing on all cylinders. Although he had filed a suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, seeking to stop the conduct of tomorrow’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Governorship Election Primary in Bayelsa State, Governor Timipre Sylva, must make assurance double sure for this reason: The powers against him in the PDP have learnt to shoot without missing; he must fly without perching. And anything will do now…anything!

And so, the embattled governor yesterday opened up yet another front, two in fact, in his bid to getting on the ballot for the PDP primaries, as he dispatched a letter each to Chairman, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Attahiru Jega and to the Acting National Chairman of the PDP, Alhaji Abubakar Kawu Baraje, asking both of them not to continue with the process of conducting tomorrow’s primaries.

But in a reaction, the PDP has argued that going by Section 87 (10) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, the courts do not have the powers to stop the party’s primaries in Bayelsa.

A statement yesterday by the National Publicity Secretary of the party, Prof. Rufai Alkali, however restated the PDP’s earlier position that no court has any injunction restraining the party from going ahead with the Bayelsa primary.

Alkali also cited Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act, which limits the timeframe within which political parties must submit names of their candidates to INEC to not later than 60 days to the date of elections. INEC has fixed the Bayelsa governorship election for February 11.

Section 87 (10) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended states: “Nothing in this section shall empower the courts to stop the holding of primaries or general elections under this Act pending the determination of any suit.”

In the separate letters titled, “Demand for cessation of action(s) on fresh gubernatorial primary election in Bayelsa State written by Sylva’s counsel, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) dated November 17, 2011 and addressed to the duo, the governor drew their attention to his pending legal action in the Abuja court.

In that suit, Sylva is challenging the party’s decision to conduct another primaries while his nomination on January 12, 2011 as an earlier one “is still subsisting,” stating that the processes arising from the said action was pasted last Wednesday on the wall of the PDP office as ordered by the court.

Fagbemi stated that “the position of the law requires that all parties to the suit pull the brakes on all actions relating to the res (subject matter of the suit) until when the action has been determined one way or the other.

“Therefore, once a party is aware of a pending court process, and whether the court has not given a specific injunctive order, the parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the court process. They should, on no account resort to self – help”, Fagbemi stressed.

In Sylva’s letter to Jega, he urged INEC “to maintain neutrality and uphold the rule of law” by not monitoring tomorrow’s primaries, a step he claimed would be in line with an order purportedly issued by the Judge before whom he had filed his pending suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja, Gabriel Kolawole.

Fagbemi continued: “May we quickly add that the hallowed principle of rule of law and democratic ideals and values dictate that all parties to this suit should not engage in anything that would prejudge the case at hand, and in the process not only pollute the stream of justice but desecrate the sanctity and integrity of court and the rule of law.

“The neutrality and fairness of INEC in this case cannot be over-emphasized and must not be in doubt. INEC’s position must be seen to subscribe to the preservation of the integrity of the court and shun any acts laced with illegality or capable of making nonsense, the rule of law. In other words, INEC should, not, in view of the pendency of this suit and the order of court contained in Annexures A and B, supervise, monitor or countenance any governorship primary election in Bayelsa State pending the hearing and determination of this suit.”

In the letter to the PDP acting chairman, Sylva charged him “to embrace wise counsel by staying further action” on the primaries, stressing that “a decision to proceed would amount to an affront against the authority and sanctity of the court.”

The letter read in part: “Please, be advised that the mere filing and service of the aforesaid processes ought to have served as enough notice to you and your party to put on hold all actions as far as the conduct of fresh primary election in Bayelsa State is concerned in view of the established principle of law enunciated in our case law,  One of such case law is EZEGBU vs. F. A. T. B. LTD. (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 220) where per Tobi J. C. A. (as he then was) at page 735, paragraphs A – F held thus: “Parties who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court are under a legal duty not to do anything to frustrate or make nonsense a possible court order. They must, whether they like it or not, wait for the court order. They must, whether they like it or not, wait for the court to take a decision one way or the other. The procedure at arriving at a decision may be slow. It may even be sluggish. But the parties cannot jump the gun and do their own thing in their own way. That will be tantamount to undermining the integrity of the court. What I am in effect saying is that a party who has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court is not entitled to resort to self-help. That will be chaos and destability of the social equilibrium if the opposing party reacts. The Supreme Court clearly held in GOVERNOR OF LAGOS VS. CHIEF OJUKWU (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 18) 621 that parties should not embark upon self-help when a matter is before a court of law. Since a successful act of self – help will certainly render subsequent successful decision nugatory, parties must refrain from it at all times. Therefore, once a party is aware of a pending court process, and whether the court has not given a specific injunctive order, the parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the court process. They should, on no account resort to self-help.

“Whenever such a situation arises, the court must invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction to curb the excesses of a recalcitrant party. That was the essence of the application made to this court by Chief Williams in the case of Chief Okoya and others vs. Santilli and others (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 206) 753. In that case, this is what I said at page 766 in respect of the disciplinary jurisdiction of a court: ‘The jurisdiction inheres in the court as adjudicator qua judex. The power is designed for the maintenance of the dignity and integrity of the court. Unless the court exercises its disciplinary jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances, it will lose its dignity and integrity in the judicial process. The institution of the court which the law has placed in an exalted and sacred position surrounded by all aura of legalism and sanctity, will be reduced to a toothless dog which can bark but cannot bit.’

“See also Daniel v. Ferguson (1891) 2 CH.D 27; Von Joel vs. Hornsey (1985) 2 CH.D 774; J. Edward Jones vs. Securities and Exchange Commission 80 (1935) L. E. D. 1015 and Adetona vs. Attorney-General of Ogun State and others. Appeal No: FCA/1/110/82 delivered on 24/8/83 (unreported). It is rather sad that the learned trial judge did not see the necessity of invoking his inherent disciplinary jurisdiction in this matter.”

Fagbemi added: “However, the order of court as contained in Annexures A and B puts it beyond per adventure that all parties to this suit should refrain from doing anything in relation to the fresh primary election until the court gives further order in respect of the motion ex-parte for injunction and after you and your party must have shown cause and the court determines the merit or otherwise of the cause shown in the proceedings of 22nd November, 2011.”

Meanwhile, elders from the Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State have endorsed the candidature of Henry Seriake Dickson for tomorrow’s PDP primaries.

They also expressed concern over the N50 billion bond secured by Governor Sylva, insisting that it is capable of mortgaging the future of the people of the state.

Chairman of the elders, Godwin Moses Odumgba, told journalists in Yenagoa yesterday after a critical and painstaking review of all the seven governorship aspirants that they have unanimously endorsed Seriake.

He said: “The elders and the opinion leaders have put their integrity at stake and therefore made a wise choice by throwing their weight behind only the candidate that can represent our interest and bring development to the state and our people. After a critical and painstaking review of governorship aspirants, we have unanimously endorsed Seriake Dickson.”

Other elders are the former Commissioner for Agriculture, Chief Dikivie Ikiogha and former Chairman of the PDP, Chief Rufus Abadi.

-Guardian

Posted by admin on Nov 18 2011. Filed under Bayelsa, Headlines, Party Politics, Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP), State News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry