Court extends interim order against INEC, PDP over 27 defected Rivers lawmakers

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, extended the December 15 interim order stopping the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from taking any action against the 27 Rivers House of Assembly members who defected to All Progressives Congress (APC).

Justice Donatus Okorowo extended the order following an application by counsel for the embattled lawmakers, Steve Adehi (SAN) and supported by Ken Njemanze (SAN) who appeared for the Rivers House of Assembly.

Although PDP’s lawyer, Adeyemi Ajibade (SAN) opposed the application, Justice Okorowo agreed that based on Order 26, Rule 10 of the FHC, the court had the discretionary power to grant the plea in the interest of justice.

The judge held that he was persuaded by the reasons given by Adehi and Njemanze that granting the order would be in the interest of justice.

• Again, B/Haram attacks Borno town, destroys transmission towers
• Speculation of deceased boy’s eyes, private parts missing not true – Police

Okorowo, who adjourned the matter until Jan 24 for hearing of the applications, said: “Application for the extension of the order of the lifespan of the ex-parte order pending the hearing and determination of motion on notice is hereby granted.”

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Okorowo had, on Dec. 15, granted the ex-parte motion filed by the 27 lawmakers who dumped PDP for APC.

The court restrained INEC from conducting fresh elections to fill the seats of the 26 assembly members.

It also restrained INEC, PDP and the state house of assembly from declaring their seats vacant and withdrawing their respective Certificate of Returns pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

Adehi insisted that the circumstances leading to the grant of the ex-parte order had not changed.

The lawyer argued that the PDP’s body language “Is such that leaves us in doubt because they are still calling for the declaration of the seats of the plaintiffs vacant and conduct of fresh election. So, those circumstances have not changed.”