Court to give judgement on Gombe ADC executive’s suit against alleged removal plot

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have called for the dismissal of a suit filed by members of the party’s Gombe State executive committee.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

They made the request on Tuesday before Judge Mohammed Liman of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

In July, some members of the Gombe State chapter of the ADC sued the party’s national leadership and INEC over alleged plans to remove elected executives in the state’s 11 local government areas.

The plaintiffs said the national working committee planned to dissolve the state, local government and ward executives in violation of the party’s constitution, which would prejudice them.

They argued that the executives, elected in 2022 for a four-year term, could not be removed before the expiration of their tenure unless the constitution’s conditions were met.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the plaintiffs’ lawyer informed the court that they were withdrawing their motion for an interlocutory injunction and motion on notice, as both had been overtaken by events following the court’s 1 September decision to hear the main suit together with the defendants’ preliminary objections.

The defendants did not object, and the judge struck out the motions.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

Arguing his clients’ case on Tuesday, plaintiffs’ lawyer Philemon Yakubu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), reminded the court that his clients were the duly elected members of the Gombe State executive working committee of the ADC.

“We are seeking a declaration that they cannot be removed unless in line with the party’s constitution,” he said.

Mr Yakubu referenced a further affidavit filed on 2 September, which urged the court to grant the plaintiff’s request. It maintained that “where there is an infraction of a political party’s constitution made pursuant to sections 221 to 225 of the Constitution and section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, the party cannot act recklessly.”

Mr Yakubu cited past cases to support his position.

Requests to dismiss suit

ADC lawyer, P.I. Oyewole, argued that based on its preliminary objection filed on 29 August and its counter-affidavit filed the same day, which included exhibits ADC1 and ADC2 (with ADC2 being the party’s constitution), “the plaintiffs had already abandoned their initial claims in the originating summons.”

Mr Oyewole argued that what the plaintiffs placed before the court as ADC’s constitution was only an unsigned document, insisting that “INEC will not be a custodian of unsigned documents.” He told the court that the document the 1st defendant presented, ADC2, is the authentic copy of the constitution, not the one submitted by the plaintiffs.”

“We submit that the plaintiff, who has predicated a cause of action on the constitution of the first defendant, has neglected what this court can actually call a constitution of ADC. So, they cannot get any action because an unsigned document cannot ground an action,” he said.

He argued that the authorities cited against the preliminary objection were irrelevant, as they dealt with disputes between aspirants and parties, not internal party matters.

He added that the plaintiffs’ claims were based on mere apprehension, as they failed to prove any dispute or injury. Citing section 82 of the Electoral Act, he argued that any meeting or withdrawal without notice is invalid, making their case speculative and academic.

Mr Oyewole further contended that, under the party’s constitution, the executives should have exhausted internal remedies before approaching the court.

He prayed for dismissal of the suit, as “they cannot use the statement, ‘it’s planning to’ when no overt evidence is before the court that the party has done so.”

Similarly, INEC’s lawyer, Kingsley Magbuin, based on its preliminary objection filed on 21 August, said the case is an internal affair, and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. It prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

Plaintiffs counter ADC, INEC’s arguments

Another plaintiffs’ lawyer, J.J. Usman, SAN, argued that the plaintiffs did not abandon their case as suggested by the defendants. He maintained that INEC had no authority over the internal affairs of political parties.

READ ALSO: Presidency slams El-Rufai over ADC coalition, plot to unseat Tinubu in 2027

On the issue of exhausting internal remedies, Mr Usman said that was no longer a requirement under the prevailing legal regime.

On the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs presented an unsigned constitution of the ADC in court, Mr Usman said the document was valid because it was admitted with the affidavit.

He argued that, according to the Supreme Court, if an exhibit forms part of an affidavit, “it must be considered irrespective of defects.” He also cited cases to back his argument.

The judge is to communicate the date of judgement to parties through their lawyers.