A member of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Nafiu Bala-Gombe, who is laying claim to the party’s chairmansip seat, has asked the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for a change of the judge handling the matter.
The plaintiff sought a transfer of his suit from Judge Emeka Nwite to another judge to guarrantee judidicial impartiality.
|
|
Judge Nwite adjourned the matter indefinitely after parties to the suit clashed over a letter already written by the plaintiff to the Chief Judge John Tsoho requesting the re-assignment of the case to a new judge.
The suit was filed by Nafiu Bala-Gombe against the ADC, along with the interim chairman of the party who recently got Supreme Court’s validation, David Mark, and interim secretary, Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Ralph Nwosu.
|
|
|
|---|
Mr Bala-Gombe is challenging the process that produced Mr Mark and Mr Aregbesola as national officers of the party. He argues that their emergence was unlawful and violated the party’s constitution. The two men emerged as top leaders of the party following a host of former public officer holders adopted the party as the coalition platform for upstaging President Bola Tinubu in the 2027 election.
Mr Bala-Gombe, whose suit raises procedural gaps, asked the court to nullify the appointments of Mr Mark and Mr Aregbesola and restrain them from parading themselves as leaders of the party.
The dispute later moved to the Court of Appeal, with Mr Mark challenging the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit. He argued that Mr Bala-Gombe’s suit bordered on an issue of internal affairs of the party which courts are barred from entertaining.
The Court of Appeal later ruled that all parties maintain the status quo.
The ruling escalated the crisis in the party, with INEC interpreting it to mean it barred it from recognising both Mr Gombe’s faction and Mr Mark’s faction of the party.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Mr Mark went on appeal at the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Mr Nwite on 14 April adjourned the case indefinitely pending the determination of the Supreme Court.
Then on 30 April, the Supreme Court partly ruled in favour of Mr Mark, granting his a request that essential restored him as the chair of the party.
Delivering judgement, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court led by Lawal Garba unanimously upheld Mr Mark’s appeal, setting aside an order of the Court of Appeal which directed all parties to the dispute to maintain status quo antebellum.
It also directed that pending processes before the lower court be determined in accordance with the law.
Friday proceedings
Friday proceedings marked the return of the parties to the lower court as directed by the Supreme Court.
At the resumed hearing, lawyer to the plaintiff, Luka Haruna, informed the court that the Supreme Court delivered judgement on 30 April in the interlocutory appeal.
Mr Haruna said the Supreme Court “dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit” and also set aside the Court of Appeal’s order staying proceedings in the substantive suit.
The lawyer, however, disclosed that the plaintiff had, through a letter dated 4 May, applied to the Chief Judge for the transfer of the case to another judge.
He said the letter had already been transmitted to the court registrar and urged Mr Nwite to await the administrative decision of the Chief Judge.
He prayed the court “to wait for the administrative decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.”
The request immediately drew strong opposition from the defence team, which accused the plaintiff of attempting to frustrate the accelerated hearing earlier ordered by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The first defendant’s lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, representing the lead lawyer S. E. Aruwa who was absent, argued that the plaintiff misrepresented the outcome of the Supreme Court judgement.
According to him, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and specifically upheld the appellate court’s order directing accelerated hearing of the case.
Mr Okpanachi further faulted the plaintiff for allegedly ambushing the defendants with the transfer request.
“We have not received any communication regarding that application. My Lord, so as it is, we don’t know the form or the content of that application. Therefore, we take the approach of the plaintiff as an ambush,” he said.
“We also consider it as an attempt to frustrate the order of accelerated hearing granted by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court.”
Continuing, Mr Okpanachi maintained that litigants were not permitted to choose courts or judges to determine their cases.
He, however, urged the court to maintain the earlier order adjourning the matter sine die pending the filing of the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgment.
The second defendant’s lawyer, Sulaiman Usman, also condemned the plaintiff’s move, describing it as “forum shopping and judge shopping.”
Mr Usman told the court that the Supreme Court had commended Judge Nwite “in glowing terms” for his handling of the proceedings.
He said it was unfortunate for the plaintiffs to return to court with a claim that they had written a private letter to the Chief Judge. He added that the request to await the outcome of that correspondence was a dangerous trend that should not be allowed to stand.
Also, lawyer to the third defendant, M. E. Sherriff, aligned himself with the submissions of the first and second defendants, arguing that substantive prayers could not be sought through ordinary letters.
Similarly, lawyer for the fifth defendant, P. I. Oyewole, described the application as “strange” and accused the plaintiff of inviting the Chief Judge “to indulge in judicial rascality.” “My Lord, asking the Chief Judge to transfer that kind of case is worse than forum shopping,” Mr Oyewole argued.
Responding, Mr Haruna faulted the defence for attacking a letter they had not seen, insisting that the plaintiff stood by its application.
Indefinite adjournment
In view of this, Judge Nwite subsequently held that the court could not take any decision on the letter without hearing all parties.
READ ALSO: ADC warns FG against alleged interference in court case
“Taking a decision or any action in such a letter without hearing from the defendants will amount to breach of their fundamental right in this suit,” the judge ruled.
He added that since the letter was addressed to the Chief Judge, the trial court could not make any pronouncement on it.
He ruled that the matter is best “adjourned sine die to allow the parties to properly file a Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court judgement in the interlocutory appeal, serve the defendants with the letter addressed to the Honourable Chief Judge, and await any further directive from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.”
It means the next hearing date will be determined upon a review of the purpport of the Supreme Court judgement.
