Federal Lawmakers from Anambra state have asked the Independent National<\/p>\n
Electoral Commission, INEC, not to withdraw their certificate of returns
\nissued to them after their elections.<\/p>\n
The Lawmakers in a letter to INEC through their lawyer, Arthur Obi Okafor,
\nSAN said the Supreme Court ruling have not nullified their elections as
\nhave been interpreted.<\/p>\n
The letter reads:<\/p>\n
The Chairman,<\/p>\n
Independent National<\/p>\n
Electoral Commission (INEC)<\/p>\n
Zambezi Crescent<\/p>\n
Maitama District,<\/p>\n
Abuja<\/p>\n
Dear Sir,<\/p>\n
THE STATUS OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE
\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES<\/p>\n
RE: JUDGMENT IN SC. 37\/2015<\/p>\n
We act as Solicitors and Counsel for and on behalf of the undermentioned
\npersons whom we shall hereinafter refer to as our client namely:-<\/p>\n
SENATOR STELLA ODUAH<\/p>\n
SENATOR ANDY UBA<\/p>\n
HON. LYNDA CHUBA IKPEAZU<\/p>\n
HON. ANAYO NNEBE<\/p>\n
HON. TONY NWOYE OKECHUKWU<\/p>\n
HON. CHRIS AZUBOGU<\/p>\n
HON. CHUKWUKA C. ONYEMA<\/p>\n
HON. OBINNA CHIDOKA<\/p>\n
HON. EUCHARIA AZODO<\/p>\n
Our clients are members of the National Assembly representing two (2)
\nSenatorial Districts of Anambra State and seven (7) Federal Constituencies
\nwithin<\/p>\n
Anambra State. Our clients were duly nominated by the National Executive
\nof the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the 2015 General Election and
\nthey contested the Election and were duly returned as elected. They were
\nsubsequently issued with their respective Certificates of Return and have
\nsince been performing the duties for which they were elected by their
\nrespective constituents before the election and during the nomination
\nprocess, the National Executive duly forwarded our clients\u2019 names which
\nthe Commission duly received. Thereafter owing to some shenanigans by some
\nstaff of the Commission whom our clients believed were working for a
\nself-styled State Executive Committee which were determined against the
\nserene and settled position of the law to sponsor candidates for the
\nPeoples Democratic party (PDP), our clients\u2019 names were relegated. This
\ncreated a situation whereby the legal department of the Commission
\ncommenced playing a \u201cmusical chair\u201d with list of candidates of the Peoples
\nDemocratic Party (PDP) when they were fully aware that the only authority
\nthat is competent to forward names of candidates is the National Executive
\nCommittee by virtue of correspondence signed by its National Chairman and
\nSecretary. In two (2) remarkable pronouncements, the Supreme Court of
\nNigeria eloquently held that no list other than that forwarded by the
\nNational Executive of the PeoplesDemocratic Party (PDP) shall be
\ncountenanced by the Commission.<\/p>\n
In EMEKA v. OKADIGBO (2012) 18 NWLR (Part 1331) 55 at 87 Paras H-C the
\nCourt held thus:-<\/p>\n
\u201cA diligent reading of the above reveals that it is the National Executive
\nCommittee of the PDP that is responsible for the conduct of the party\u2019s
\nNational Assembly primaries. The Court of Appeal was correct. There can
\nonly be one valid primary and that is the primaries conducted by the
\nNational Executive Committee. A primary conducted by the State Chapter of
\nthe PDP is not a primary. It is an illegal contraption that carries with
\nit no rights. It is a complete nullity. The primaries conducted on the 8th
\nof January, 2011 was conducted by the National Executive Committee of the
\nPDP, and it was the only authentic primaries conducted by the PDP to
\nchoose its candidate for the Anambra North Senatorial Seat. On the other
\nhand, the purported primaries conducted on the 10th or 12th of January,
\n2011 were conducted by the State Chapter of the PDP. It is null and void
\nfor the purpose of choosing the PDP\u2019s candidate for the Senatorial
\nelections. It is clear that at no time were two parallel primaries
\nconducted\u201d.<\/p>\n
4.03​In EMENIKE v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Part 1315) 556 at 594 Para H,
\nthe Supreme Court in interpreting a similar provision was emphatic that
\nthe PDP primaries conducted by the Abia State Executive Committee
\n​of PDP was illegal as it was not empowered to conduct primary
\nelection and that being the case, the Respondent who emerged from the said
\nprimary was not properly elected. Further at page 602 para H, the Supreme
\nCourt settled the position thus:-<\/p>\n
​​\u201cIt must be elementary now, that the only valid primary is
\nthe one ​​conducted by the National Executive Committee of the
\nPDP. The ​​primary which the Appellant participated in was
\nillegal, it having ​​been conducted by the State Executive of
\nthe PDP\u201d.<\/p>\n
Also the Apex Court in SC.4\/2014, SC.7\/2014 and SC.752\/2013: YAR\u2019ADUA &
\nORS v. YANDOMA & ORS delivered on 19th December, 2014 per Mary
\nUkaegoPeter-Odili JSC at page 34 held thus:<\/p>\n
\u201cAt the root of these decisions cited above is the fact that must be
\ningrained well in mind of the court and litigants that who becomes the
\ncandidate of a political party is an issue to be solely determined by that
\npolitical party and well in its domestic realm and not for the
\ninterference of any agency or the court. In that wise, since all the
\npolitical parties are National, it is its National Executive Committee or
\ndelegates therefrom who can validly conduct a primary election or conduct
\na process through which the particular political party is to bring forth
\nits candidate and no other arm of that party including a state organ of
\nthat party. That was the gravamen of the case GARBA YAKUBU LADO & ORS. V.
\nCPC & ORS (2012) All FWLR (Part 607) 623 and which the Supreme Court
\ndeclined jurisdiction and also decided that neither the Court of Appeal
\nnor the trial High Court had jurisdiction\u201d.<\/p>\n
It was therefore odd for the Legal Department of the Commission to have
\nill advised the Commission to purport to accept the list forwarded by a
\nself-styled State Executive, while disregarding the list already domiciled
\nwith the Commission and forwarded by the National Executive of the Peoples
\nDemocratic Party (PDP). By so doing, the Commission purported to have
\nacted pursuant to what was said to be an Order of Court made by the
\nFederal High Court Abuja Division in FHC\/ABJ\/CS\/854\/2014.<\/p>\n
Your Honour, a perusal of the Order made in the said proceedings will not
\ndisclose any place where the Federal High Court Ordered the Commission to
\naccept a list of Candidates forwarded by a State Chapter of the
\nPeoplesDemocratic Party (PDP). That would have been a total impertinence
\nif not rascality as every High Court is duty bound to obey the established
\nprinciples of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Thus, with
\nor without an Order of Court, on no account would the legal department or
\nany other authority advise the Commission to accept a list forwarded by a
\nself-styled State Executive.<\/p>\n
It is also on record that our Client appealed the decision of the Federal
\nHigh Court to the Court of Appeal which set aside the decision. Upon an
\nappeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court on 29th January, 2016
\nallowed the appeal.<\/p>\n
This appeal has now excited some attention and has been subjected to
\nblatant and crude misinterpretations which have necessitated this
\ncorrespondence. This correspondence is aimed at setting the record
\nstraight so that your good self will not again be misled by your legal
\ndepartment into unjustifiably occasioning an unnecessary confusion in the
\nprocess. The judgment under reference is SC. 37 \/2015: CHIEF EJIKE
\nOGUEBEGO & ANOR v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS.<\/p>\n
May I draw your attention to the most pertinent segment of the Judgment
\nfor the purpose of the status of the legislators sponsored by the Peoples
\nDemocratic Party (PDP) at pages 46, 47 and 48 of the Judgment where their
\nlordships of the Supreme Court held as follows:-<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Court below, however, veered from the course set by the trial court
\nand took the matter to another level which clearly failed to take into
\nconsideration the main issue before the trial court. On page 1291 of
\nVolume 3 of the record of appeal the Court of Appeal held as follows:-<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is established beyond peradventure that it is the National Executive
\nCommittee of the appellant which has the power to conduct a valid primary
\nfor the nomination or selection of candidates for a general election. See
\nEMEKA V. OKADIGBOsupra and EMENIKE v. PDP supra. Reliefs 3, 5 and 6 were
\npredicated on the possibility of congress and primary being conducted by
\nthe caretaker committee set up by the appellant. There was no evidence to
\nback this up. Exhibit D at page 32 of Volume 1 of the record (the letter
\nof PDP appointing the South East Executive to oversee the affairs of the
\nAnambra State Chapter \u201cuntil congresses are held\u201d) does not suggest that
\nthe congresses were to be held by the South East Zonal Executive.\u201d<\/p>\n
I hold the view that the Court below misconceived the real issue in
\ncontroversy at the trial Court which gave birth to the appeal before it.
\nThere was no controversy as to which organ of the 1st Respondent (PDP) has
\npower to conduct primaries. I can say it for the umpteenth time that the
\nmain issue was that stated by the learned trial judge. That is, whether
\nthe 1st Respondent can ignore the subsisting order of Court and set up a
\ncaretaker committee for Anambra State PDP in brazen contempt of the Court.
\nPeriod. Other issues that were thrown up were just to garnish the issue.
\nTherefore, the Court below having left the main issues in controversy and
\nbe persuaded to dwell on the issues as to which organ of PDP has power to
\nconduct primary, went on a frolic and cannot be allowed to stand.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, I hold that there was no feature in the case submitted by the
\nAppellants that warranted the court below to apply the cases of OKADIGBO
\nv. EMEKA & Ors (Supra) and EMENIKE v. PDP (supra). The two authorities
\ndecided on which organ of a Political Party has power to conduct
\nprimaries. This is not the issue in this case. Thus, this issue is yet
\nagain resolved in favour of the Appellants.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court did not order the withdrawal of the Certificates of
\nReturn issued by the Commission to our clients. They did not hold that the
\nfaction of the PDP had the right to sponsor candidates for the Peoples
\nDemocratic Party (PDP). They did not equally authorize the Commission to
\nsubstitute our clients with the individuals whose names were on the list
\nimproperly allowed by the Commission in obvious disregard of the series of
\njudgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to the effect that it is only
\nthe National Executive of the party that has the vires to sponsor
\ncandidates.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court could not have for after all, the same Court in a sister
\nappeal- SC.29\/2015 ODEDOv P.D.P (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt 1476) 229 at 266-267
\n(para H-D) with respect to one of the said state sponsored candidates
\narising from the same Federal High Court judgment held thus-<\/p>\n
\u201cSuffice it to say it is the National Executive of the PDP that is imbued
\nwith the responsibility for the conduct of the party\u2019s National Assembly
\nPrimaries. Any purported attempt to conduct such primary by the State
\nChapter of the PDP cannot be validly characterized as competent. The act
\nis totally illegal and will confer no right as it is a nullity and also
\nconstituting an abuse of court process.<\/p>\n
It is interesting, I must say that the case under consideration like Emeka
\n& Okadigbo originates also from the same Anambra State. This is worrisome
\nas it gives a clear indication that the State Executive Committee of the
\nparty appears not to know their limit and hence the continued persistence
\nin usurping of power not due to them. This is inspite of the pronouncement
\nmade by this Court and its orders. The practice is a flagrant abuse of
\npower and the national body will do well and draw the attention of the
\nerring state committee thereto. Judgments of court are to be obeyed and
\nserve a guide for now and the future\u201d.<\/p>\n
It must be noted that as far as our clients are concerned, the restoration
\nof their names as candidates was not pursuant to the Court of Appeal
\ndecision setting aside the decision of the Federal High Court. The
\nJudgment was perhaps a wake-up call. What the Commission did by restoring
\nthe names of our clients as candidates was simply to adhere to the settled
\nprinciples of law to the effect that it is only the National Executive
\nthat possessed the vires to nominate candidates for election. The Supreme
\nCourt of Nigeria was equally emphatic that the case which eventually got
\nto the Court and on which they delivered the judgment now sought to be
\nmisinterpreted, had nothing to do with nomination of candidates by a body
\nother than the National Executive of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP),
\nthat matter having been fully settled by numerous, previous decisions of
\nthe Court.<\/p>\n
In recognition of the fact that the matter does not involve sponsorship of
\ncandidates for the PeoplesDemocratic Party, all the candidates illegally
\nsponsored by the said Oguebego led State Executive Committee of the
\nPeoples Democratic Partyinstituted Suit No. FHC\/ABJ\/CS\/177\/2015: SENATOR
\nANNIE CLEMENT OKONKWO & 43 ORS v. INEC & ORS in which they are seeking a
\nrestoration of their names as the candidates of the Party. The said suit
\nis still pending and is also the subject of interlocutory appeal at the
\nCourt of Appeal in CA\/A\/313\/2015.<\/p>\n
Having regard to the foregoing, we urge you to resist the machinations of
\nthose who are ill motivated and bent on causing confusion in the system.
\nIf you find that our clients were nominated by the National Executive of
\nthe Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which is the case, then in the absence
\nof a Court Order, there will be no compulsion or justification on your
\npart to interfere with the mandate vested in our clients by the PDP and
\nthe electorate.<\/p>\n
Please find attached the said judgment of the Supreme Court in SC.37\/2015
\nand the Originating Summons instituted at the Federal High Court as
\nFHC\/ABJ\/CS\/177\/2015: SENATOR ANNIE CLEMENT OKONKWO & 43 ORS v. INEC & ORS
\nwhich is still pending.<\/p>\n
May we anticipate your mature and detached approach to this matter so as
\nto ensure that justice, equity and good conscience are maintained.<\/p>\n
Thank you for your co-operation.<\/p>\n
Yours faithfully,<\/p>\n
____________________<\/p>\n
ARTHUR OBI OKAFOR (SAN)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Federal Lawmakers from Anambra state have asked the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, not to withdraw their certificate of returns issued to them after their elections. The Lawmakers in a…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":46026,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-exclusive"],"yoast_head":"\n