Anxiety as Supreme Court hears PDP's appeal tomorrow

*Makarfi lacks the right to appeal in PDP's name, says Sheriff

*No, National Convention empowers me, says Makarfi


The leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has given reasons why the Supreme Court cannot hear an appeal marked: SC/133/2017 brought before it by the sacked National Caretaker Committee of the party led by Senator Ahmed Makarfi.

The PDP’s National Executive Committee (NEC) led by Ali Modu Sheriff (as Chairman), Prof. Wale Oladipo (as Secretary) said the Makarfi Committee, having been declared illegal by the February 17, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt, lacked the powers to take decisions for the party, including initiating court proceedings in its name.

The PDP leadership stressed this position in a written arguments it made in support of an application it filed on March 21, 2017 seeking the striking out of the appeal filed on February 27, 2017 by the Markafi Committee against the February 17 Appeal Court’s judgment. The written submission was filed on May 10 in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive on May 4, 2017.

The PDP leadership is contending that the Makarfi Committee did not obtain the necessary authorisation of the PDP to appeal in its name and on its behalf, because the PDP under the current leadership, was comfortable with the Appeal Court judgment and did not intent to challenge it.

It further contented, in the address written by a group of lawyers led by Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), that since the Court of Appeal, in its February 17 judgment, declared that Sheriff-led NEC as the authentic leadership organ of the PDP, the Makarfi-led Committee could no longer pursue an appeal in the name of the party.

The Sheriff-led PDP leadership argued that the decision of the Makarfi committee to file an appeal in the name of the PDP without its (the party’s) authorisation was not only illegal, it violated the party’s constitution.
Relying on the provisions of Chapter 5, Articles 35(1), 36(1) and 42(1) of the PDP constitution, it argued that the party, with a corporate personality, could only act through the principal national officer, whose powers and functions are stated in the constitution.

It referred to a May 18, 2016 judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital territory (FCT) in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/1443/2016, ordering a return to status quo as at May 18, 2016 and the subsequent ruling of the Federal High Court in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/464/2016, to the effect that only the Sheriff NEC could instruct lawyers for the party, and urged the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal.

The Federal High Court, Abuja, had in the extant ruling dated 30th June, 2016 held that, "Any action taken by the Senator Makarfi caretaker committee having regard to the subsistence of the orders of the ‎Lagos Division of this court inclusive of the authority to issue letter of instructions to Ferdinand Orbih (SAN) or any other person as counsel to act for Peoples Democratic Party is unlawful, illegal and according declared null and void...Unless the order of Lagos division of this court is set aside,Senator Makarfi led caretaker committee of Peoples Democratic Party acts in vain in affairs of the Peoples Democratic Party...Dr. Alimodu Sheriff is the National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party inclusive of the authority to appoint a counsel to represent it in court."

It would be recalled that the Federal High Court Court in Lagos had given two earlier orders forbidding PDP from removing Sheriff, Oladipo and others.

The first was on the 12th of May, 2016, which stated as follows: "An order of interlocutory injunction is granted to the plaintiffs/applicants restraining the 2nd defendant/respondent from conducting any election into the offices of the national chairman, national secretary and national auditor occupied by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit."

The second order was made on the 20th of May, 2016, which was to the effect that: "An order is made directing the parties herein not to take any step that will foist a fait accompli on the Court."

It was based all these subsisting orders and judgment, which are yet to be appealed or set aside, as well as the alleged violation of the PDP Constitution on the process leading to the removal of party officers that the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal in its 17th February, 2017 judgment nullified all the actions taken at the controversial 21st of May, 2016 National Convention of the PDP and sacked the Makarfi-led Caretaker Committee.

The court held thus: "It is my holding on this issue that the purported National Convention held on 21/5/2016 was in contravention of a lawful court order and its own constitution, therefore all the decisions taken thereof are hereby set aside by me. Parties are ordered to maintain the status quo ante bellum, as pronounced by Mohammed J., in Suit No: fHC/Hc/CV/1443/2016..."

The Sheriff-led PDP leadership noted that it has not by its argument said the Makarfi Committee cannot appeal the May 17 judgment of the Appeal Court, having been parties in the case from the trial court, it (the Makarfi Committee) or its members could only appeal as interested parties after first, obtaining the court’s leave to so appeal.

In a counter argument, the Makarfi Committee, represented by a group of lawyers led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), wants the court to discountenance the Sheriff NEC’s arguments and proceed to hear its appeal, in which it among others, urged the Supreme Court to set aside the Appeal Court judgment of February 17.

In its reply argument dated May 15, 2017, the Makarfi Committee queried the legitimacy of the application filed by the Sheriff-led NEC and argued that it was not only strange, but intended to frustrate the hearing of the main appeal.

It argued that it was wrong for Sheriff and others, who had briefed Akin Olujinmi (SAN) to represent them in the substantive appeal and had filed a respondents’ brief, in which they also made similar arguments in relation to the competence of the appeal, cannot again, brief Fagbemi to ask the court not to hear the appeal but to strike it out.

Relying on Order 8 Rule 6 (1), (2) and (4) of the Supreme Court’s Rules, the Makarfi Committee faulted the March 15, 2017 letter of the Sheriff-led NEC applying to withdraw the appeal and the subsequent application for its strike out. It argued that since the appeal was not filed by Sheriff and others, they lacked the right to apply to withdraw it.

In a response on point of law, filed by Fagbemi on May 18, the Sheriff-led NEC faulted all legal arguments by the Makarfi Committee, urged the court to discountenance its contention and hold that it lacked the locus standi to file an appeal in the name of the PDP, having been sacked by a subsisting judgment.

On the issue of representation, they explained that while Fagbemi and others are representing the‎ PDP as a party, Olujinmi is leading a team for Sheriff and Oladipo, sued in their personal capacities and representing the National officers, NWC and NEC of the PDP.

In the substantive appeal, among other issues, it is the contention of the Sheriff's lawyers that the appeal should either be dismissed or struck out because the supposed appellants (Makarfi's PDP) did not ‎obtain neither the leave of the Court of Appeal nor that of the Supreme Court before filing the the appeal which is based on facts or mixed law and facts.

The Makarfi Committee has, however filed processes, seeking to regularise their processes. But, this was done after parties had joined issues and briefs exchanged.

Meanwhile, it was learnt over the weekend that the Supreme Court has rescheduled the hearing of the appeal relating to the PDP leadership dispute for tomorrow (May 22).

The court had, on the last date, May 4, 2017 ordered the filing of the written briefs and adjourned to May 25 for hearing. It could not be ascertained what informed the court’s decision to bring the date forward.

Gov.Fayose is expecting in APC tommorrow

All is set for mass exodus from PDP.

APDA calling...

The new CJN would surely deliver PDP from APC and Sheriff, I trust in that man hes indeed a true southerner

The Supreme Court will set aside that appeal court ruling

It is not within the jurisdiction of any court to say who the chairman of the PDP should be

The chairmanship of any party can only be determined by the party itself! This is an internal party affair and the chairmanship should only be determined through convention

All lower court hearings should be quashed

With this PDP caretaker committee can zone leadership of the party to south west and take out both sheriff and makarfi from the equation.

Problem settled!

Markarifi Led PDP will win, because of the report of buhari demise. otherwise the north will lost out of equation for 2019 if there is no PDP

this time around sherrif is gonna get a good punch on his scrotum

modified : or else the whole of pdp should decamp to apc

chelsea2014:
Gov.Fayose is expecting in APC tommorrow

'his expected'

Let Supreme Court rule in favour of Sheriff so they can form another party

oladoja1:

'his expected'

Say what?

Following closely.

The lawyers of the Sheriff camp have a very sound arguement. If justice is served, they would win again.

nonsobaba:
The lawyers of the Sheriff camp have a very sound arguement. If justice is served, they would win again.

Their argument is sound only if you think the world began only after the appeal court ruling in favour of sheriff

the very argument sheriff is trying to make will be used to overturn the appeal court ruling

The PDP as a private cooperation can not have the appeal court determine its leadership against the will of the party members!

That is an overreach by the courts!

The leadership tussle can only be settled through votes organised according to the constitution of the party. The court can not impose a leader on PDP

krendo:


Their argument is sound only if you think the world began only after the appeal court ruling in favour of sheriff

the very argument sheriff is trying to make will be used to overturn the appeal court ruling

The PDP as a private cooperation can not have the appeal court determine its leadership against the will of the party members!

That is an overreach by the courts!

The leadership tussle can only be settled through votes organised according to the constitution of the party. The court can not impose a leader on PDP

What are you saying? Are you saying that courts don't have d power to settle disputes within an organisation or a union? That aside, the Markafi camp don't have the locus to approach the Supreme court with the authority of d PDP, as they were stripped of that authority by the appeal court. They can approach the court on their individual capacities. That is what the Sheriff team are saying. Common sense should tell you they are right.

The courts can be used to settle dispute or interprete the constitution of a union

The courts can not however be used to circumvent the electoral mechanisms of a union or party which is what Sheriff is doing here!

nonsobaba:

What are you saying? Are you saying that courts don't have d power to settle disputes within an organisation or a union? That aside, the Markafi camp don't have the locus to approach the Supreme court with the authority of d PDP, as they were stripped of that authority by the appeal court. They can approach the court on their individual capacities. That is what the Sheriff team are saying. Common sense should tell you they are right.

How did the Sheriff faction approach the court of appeal even when the High court already declared the Makarfi led faction as the authentic PDP?

TonyeBarcanista:
All is set for mass exodus from PDP.

APDA calling...

HERE you are after you deceived your gullible follower that PDP wiuld win Katstina by-election. Shame no dey ever catch you..

oladoja1:

'his expected'

' is expected'

When umbrella started licking.........Star of David becomes the refugees seal.

Source - http://thenationonlineng.net/makarfi-kicks-sheriff-urges-court-shun-appeal/

akthedream:
' is expected'

third person's singular, don't forget

Hmmm

Turaki4Presiden:


How did the Sheriff faction approach the court of appeal even when the High court already declared the Makarfi led faction as the authentic PDP?

You are not informed! Makarfi and his gang went on Appeal and not Sheriff!

Turaki4Presiden:


How did the Sheriff faction approach the court of appeal even when the High court already declared the Makarfi led faction as the authentic PDP?

He approached the Appeal Court with the 2 "mago-mago" court order he had prior to the botched convention and the rulings of Justice Okon Abang after the convention.

The mistake of PDP was not to first vacate the order of the Lagos Court before the convention. Will you blame PDP? When it was Sheriff that was in-charge of party affairs then.

In my opinion I don't see the order flouted as NO election was conducted into the concerned offices, but I don't think it was wise to approach SC in the name of PDP after the ruling of Appeal Court. Perhaps, the Appeal should have been in the name of NCC of PDP, as it was legal in the eyes of the law since it was creation of the Convention.

TonyeBarcanista:
He approached the Appeal Court with the 2 "mago-mago" court order he had prior to the botched convention and the rulings of Justice Okon Abang after the convention.

The mistake of PDP was not to first vacate the order of the Lagos Court before the convention. Will you blame PDP? When it was Sheriff that was in-charge of party affairs then.

In my opinion I don't see the order flouted as NO election was conducted into the concerned offices, but I don't think it was wise to approach SC in the name of PDP after the ruling of Appeal Court. Perhaps, the Appeal should have been in the name of NCC of PDP, as it was legal in the eyes of the law since it was creation of the Convention.

You are wrong, saying they can't appeal in the name of PDP amounts to denial of their right to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment that reinstate Sheriff.