Days after a fed High Court in Owerri cancelled the All Progressive Congress, APC, held in Imo State, the Imo APC Stakeholders Forum, otherwise known as the Allied Forces, has gone to the Appeal Court to challenge the ruling.
In a Notice of Appeal filed by their counsel, S, A Njoku, Esq of Nnodim Njoku &Co, the APC, Hilary Eke who is the chairman, APC Imo State and others believed to be of the Allied Forces expressed dissatisfaction with the judgment of the High Court, Owerri Judicial Division presided over by Justice Allagoa, and which judgment was delivered on the 5th day of July 2018.
The counsel in the Notice of Appeal States “in respect of the suit BOTH HEREBY APPEAL against the said judgment to the Court of Appeal, Owerri, UPON GROUNDS set out in PARAGRAPH 3 herein, and will, at the hearing, of the appeal, seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4”
Part of the Decision complained of is the whole decision/judgment on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law when he held that the plaintiffs have the requisite locus standi to institute and maintain the action before the court.
According to the counsel as contained in the “Particulars of Error”, the constitution of and the guidelines of the 1st Defendant, (APC), a Ward Congress in an exercise to elect officers of the party at the ward level. Each ward is a DISTINCT AND SEPARATE POLITICAL ENTITY and the congresses are conducted completely and exclusively within each ward.
“Also, it is only members of the party in each distinct ward that participate at the congresses in that particular ward. None members of the party from that ward and members of the party who are NOT from that ward cannot take part in the ward congress and so cannot question its conduct or non- conduct.
“In the instant case, the plantiffs challenged the conduct of the ward congresses in the entire 305 wards of Imo State, even though they come from ONLY 5 OUT of the said 305 wards in Imo State.
“Thus, the plaintiffs lack the locus standi to institute this action in respect of all the wards of Imo State, being that they are not registered members of the party in those wards and have no right to participate in the said congresses or challenge their counsel.
“Thus the learned that judge erred in law when he said that the plaintiffs had the requisite locus standi to institute and maintain the action.
Another ground for Error is that the Trial Judge erred in law when he held that the plaintiffs have a justifiable cause of action against the defendants, considering that it is a suit by members of a political party against the political party over the running and/ or internal affairs of the party and there are constitutional means for resolution of conflicts or any dispute, unless and until such mechanism has been exhausted.
“In the instant case, the plaintiffs failed to utilize the internal mechanism of resolving the dispute (if any) through the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the party”
Third error that warranted the Appeal is that Trail Judge wrongly held that the federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit contrary to express provisions of section 251 of the constitution of the FGN of 1999 (as Amended) and section 87 (a) of the Electoral Act.
The particulars of the Errors are as follows;
“The subject-matter of this suit is wholly and entirely on the internal affairs of a political party and the law is settled that courts do not run the affairs of the political party for its member.
“The question of the holding and/or non holding of congresses of political parties to elect its officers to run its affairs is not one of the issues on which either exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction is vested on the federal High Court.
“section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 vests concurring jurisdiction on the federal High Court ONLY ON ISSUES OF PRIMARIES TO NOMINATE CANDIDATES FOR A GENERAL ELECTION, and not in respect of party congresses to elect the party’s officials.
“The courts have held the provisions of section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act have not derogated from the established principal of non justifiability of a partys wide powers to run and conduct its own affairs.
“Thus, the learned Trial Judgment erred in law when in spite of all the arguments and authorities to the contrary be assumed jurisdiction, heard the matter and determined same”.
On the fourth ground, the counsel said the learned Trial judge erred in law when he proceeded, heard and determined the matter on affidavit evidence when it was clear and manifest that the facts in contention in the case are VERY HOSTILE FACTS which can only be proved by oral testimony needing the examination and cross examination of witnesses and subjecting the documentary evidence” based on
“the defendants exhibited a CERTIFIED TRUE COPY of the “REPORT OF WARD AND LGA CONGRESSES” signed by six (6) MEMBERS of the IMO STATE WARD AD LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONGRESSES COMMITTEE of the 1” defendant for IMO STATE, to the effect that the Ward Congresses were successfully held in all the 305 wards of Imo State.
“Also exhibited were CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES of the Report of the “IMO STATE LOCAL CONGRESS REPORT”, “IMO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPEAL COMMITTEE REPORT”, and IMO STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONGRESS APPEAL COMMITTEE REPORT” All these Reports were duly and adequately certified and signed by the members.
“on the other hand, the plaintiffs exhibited a photocopy of a document titled “REPORT ON THE IMO WARD CONGRESS”, signed by ONLY ONE PERSON and NOT CERTIFIED BY ANYBODY, and another UNCERTIFIED document signed by ONLY TWO PEOPLE contending that no congresses were held.
“The law is settled that the decision of any COURT, PANEL COMMITTEE etc is the decision of the MAJORITY in the event of a split decision, meaning that the decision of the committee is, without double, that of the majority. And there is not doubt as to what the majority decision is in this matter. It is that WARD CONGRESSES were held.
“Also the law is settled that an uncertified public document is inadmissible in evidence. And APC, being a public institution, all documents, including Reports of committees submitted to, and kept by it, are public documents which must be certified to make them admissible in law.
“But in spite of the certified true copies of the committee Reports attesting to the fact that congresses were validly held, the learned Trial Judge, relying on the uncertified public documents, held that no congresses were held in Imo State.
“This is an error in-law and it is this error that led the court to its wrong decision”.
While stating that the court further erred in law when it accepted and acted upon an uncertified copy of a public document and a mini report, and rejected a certified True Copy of the letter written by same chairman by the majority of the members of the congress committee to the effect that the congresses were properly, validly and legimately held, the Allied Forces lawyers sought the following Reliefs which are “setting aside the judgment and orders of the trial court which entered judgment for the plaintiffs granting them all their reliefs in the suit and, instead” and “Dismissing the suit and all the reliefs of the plaintiffs/respondents as being frivolous and a gross abuse of the process of the Court”.
It would be recalled that the Allied Forces after the ruling of the Federal High Court declared intention to challenge the decision of justice Allagoa in the Appeal Court.
