Court vacates order restraining APC convention

An FCT High Court has issued an order vacating the restraining injunction against the March 26 convention of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Justice Bello Kawu on Friday held that a member of a political party cannot sue the party.

He said the the order of November 18, 2021, has been overtaken by a recent Supreme Court judgement on a similar matter.

The court fixed March 30 for the substantive suit.

An aggrieved member of the APC, Hon. Salisu Umoru, had sought to restrain the APC, Governor Buni and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from organising any convention until the determination of the suit.

He had further sought an “Interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondent (APC and Governor Buni), their allies, agents, representatives, associates or whoever is acting for them or through them from organising, holding or conducting the national convention of the APC in January and February 2022 or any other date either before or after pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

Prior to Friday’s ruling, there was anxiety among top shots of the ruling party.

Thrice, the exercise, which would birth a new crop of National Working Committee (NWC) to take over from the Mai Mala Buni -led caretaker committee, constituted in June 2020, when Adams Oshiomhole was ousted, failed.

The application seeking to set aside the November 18, 2021 ruling of the court restraining the convention was stalled on Tuesday after two lawyers, Shuaibu Aruwan (SAN) and Michael Adoyi, both announced appearances for the APC.

At the resumed hearing on Thursday, Aruwan informed the court that he had received a letter from the APC confirming his appointing him as the true counsel in the matter as ordered by the court.

He then sought to move the application to set aside the earlier order of the court for want of jurisdiction.

In the application dated March 9, 2022, the APC was asking for “an order of this honourable court striking out the suit in its entirety for want of jurisdiction.

“And for such other order(s) as the honourable court may deem fit in the circumstance.”

However, Mike Enahoro-Eba, counsel to the claimant, Hon. Salisu Umoru, objected to the commencement of the hearing arguing that the rules permit the respondents seven days to reply to the application for setting aside.

He said the issue of defence counsel had just been resolved and they would need time to join issues with the pending applications before the court.