The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, on Thursday, insisted that the 26 Rivers House of Assembly lawmakers who dumped the party for the All Progressives Congress, APC, were no longer members of the state legislature.

The PDP National Legal Adviser, Adeyemi Ajibade (SAN), said this to newsmen shortly after Justice Donatus Okorowo of a Federal High Court, Abuja, adjourned the embattled Rivers lawmakers’ suit until January 24, 2024.


Ajibade said though President Bola Tinubu might have intervened in the dispute between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, the party stood on what the constitution says about defection.


He said: “PDP as a party; we are standing on the side of the constitution of the country. It is not about issues of an agreement but by the Constitution, we all sworn to uphold.

“The governor himself swore to uphold the constitution likewise the President.

“I am not against the president calling for the resolution of the matter. He is the chief security officer of this country and he has every right to intervene in the issue.

“But besides that, we, as a political party; the PDP owns those seats and certainly we are interested in those seats.

“Whatever the governor is doing in this matter, no resolution has been brought to Wadata Plaza on this matter.

“However, as a political party, we cannot leave the seats and the votes willingly given to the party by people of Rivers State.”

According to the senior lawyer, aside from that, the constitution of the country is very clear; Section 109 (1g) is clear as to issues of detection.


He said the affected Rivers lawmakers had not denied that they defected.

“Even if you pick the writ of summon that was filed before this court, they said they actually defected.

“So they are only stating while they defected; that they have the right to defect based on the reasons given by them.

“So it is not an issue as to whether there was a defection or not. And we cannot fold our hands. So we have to go to recover our seats,” he said.

Ajibade, who said they had challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit, said if the court ruled that it had jurisdiction, PDP would appeal it.


“If at the end of the day, this court decided to maintain and insists that it has jurisdiction, then we will do the needful.

“We will study the ruling and if possible, we have a higher court,” he said.

On what transpired in court, he said though the case was adjourned for hearing of interlocutory injunction as the PDP filed an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter

He said though he opposed the plaintiffs’ application for the extension of the ex-parte order earlier granted by the court on December 15, it was unfortunate that other defendants who were supposed to take sides with them did not oppose it, and the court granted the request.

Why we are in court — Lawmakers

Also speaking, Mr Steve Adehi, SAN, lawyer to the 26 lawmakers (plaintiffs), said though they were in court with the hope of taking their interlocutory injunction, an issue regarding a change of counsel occurred.


He said the matter was adjourned to enable parties to put their house in order.

He said the court, however, made an order extending the lifespan of the interim order pending the hearing of the motion on notice scheduled to come up on January 24.

When asked why the suit was not withdrawn by his clients based on the resolution entered into by Fubara and Wike, Adehi said: “We have just informed the court today that the counsel (Mr. Lukman Fagbemi, SAN) that withdrew said he had instruction to withdraw from the matter because it is being settled.

“The other counsel, who came in today, requested for an adjournment to confirm that position with their client.

“So I think we are not averse to settlement. Like the parties said, they just want to confirm the position from their various clients which is what all of us have said.


“If we confirm that information, we see how we can move forward.

“But then, the 2nd defendant (PDP) in the matter, by his conduct, has not shown any indication that there is going to be any settlement.

“The more reason why this adjournment was really necessary so that all the parties can go and confirm from their clients the position of the settlement initiative,” he said.

Interim order

Justice Okorowo had extended the December 15 interim order stopping the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and PDP from taking any action against the 26 lawmakers pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

The judge extended the order following an application by counsel for the embattled lawmakers, Adehi and supported by Njemanze, who appeared for the assembly.


Although PDP’s lawyer, Ajibade, opposed the application, 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 had, on December 15, granted the ex-parte motion filed by the 26 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 House of Assembly from declaring their seats vacant and withdrawing their respective Certificate of Returns pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The Rivers lawmakers sued INEC, PDP, the assembly, clerk of the assembly, Inspector-General of Police and Department of State Services, DSS, as first to sixth defendants, respectively.

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/pdp-insists-on-declaring-26-defected-rivers-lawmakers-seats-vacant/amp/

PDP still dey Nigeria?

Those defected legislators should start looking for wheen barrow to push, or they can meet wike to fix them up to be washing cars at federal secretariat

Which of the PDP is this one?

The one headed by President Bola Tinubu or another one?

LegendHero:
Which of the PDP is this one?

The one headed by President Bola Tinubu or another one?

The one headed by the people of Rivers state, except you want to tell us that Tinubu is now working to shut the voices of Rivers State people?

That's the right thing to do, the so called resolutions anchored by tinubu is invalid

vanbonattel:


The one headed by the people of Rivers state, except you want to tell us that Tinubu is now working to shut the voices of Rivers State people?

Which of the people? Are all the people of Rivers state PDP members?

LegendHero:


Which of the people? Are all the people of Rivers state PDP members?

Can't you read? Must I explain everything to you like a toddler?

vanbonattel:


Can't you read? Must I explain everything to you like a toddler?

No, I can’t read. Please explain to me like a toddler.

LegendHero:
Which of the PDP is this one?

The one headed by President Bola Tinubu or another one?

Are you saying that PDAPC is headed by Tinubu

PDP must not let them back no matter what. If they can easily switch then let then their heart is surely not. With pdp.

vanbonattel:


The one headed by the people of Rivers state, except you want to tell us that Tinubu is now working to shut the voices of Rivers State people?

the governor says otherwise sir.the president of youth association in River state says otherwise sir.Make una no give una self High BP ontop political matter.The governor welcome the the deal brokered by the GCFR.thanks

Righthussle:
PDP still dey Nigeria?

I blame pdp for not being a viable opposition, LP have just taken over the job

Bobloco:


Are you saying that PDAPC is headed by Tinubu

Yes PDAPC and a faction of LP.

So technically it is PDAPCLP.

This is just about the right thing
The lawmakers acted as if APC was the only party in Nigeria. goofed and acted carelessly

LegendHero:


Yes PDAPC and a faction of LP.

So technically it is PDAPCLP.

Truly, Tinubu is a master strategist as you usually describe him

The defected lawmakers are taking advantage of the loophole in the law which allows for defections when there’s an unresolved problem in the party.

The lawmakers while defecting, cited the unresolved crisis in the PDP that has to do with the position of the national secretary.

The questions the court will have to contend with are:

Is/was there a problem in the party with regards to the position of the national secretary?

Was this issue resolved before the 27 lawmakers defected?

I don’t think the lawmakers are as foolish as it appears.

People who do not know the law are looking at the issue from a narrow perspective and they are the same people that will accuse the judges of taking bribes when they deliver judgment based on facts presented to them.