Search This Blog

Thursday, 28 July 2016

Lawyers in serious battle to represent PDP in court


Two different lawyers are currently in battle to represent the Peoples

Democratic Party (PDP) in a case against the party by the embattled
national chairman Ali Modu-Sheriff.
Modu-Sheriff in a motion of injunction filed before a Federal High Court,
Abuja, asked that the party be stopped from conducting its planned
convention scheduled for August 17.
At the hearing in court today, Adeniyi Akintola formerly representing the party,
said he is yet to understand the role another lawyer Ferdinand Obi wants to
play in the matter.
Obi in his argument had said that the plaintiff cannot sue and offer legal
representation for one of the defendants in his suit.
He said such act would amount to a scandalous one.
The court however sought to determine who among both counsels will
represent the PDP as Akintola had accused Obi of playing dual roles on the
matter.
He said Obi intends to offer legal representation and also collect process for
the second defendant, PDP, adding that he (Akintola) is the legal adviser of
the PDP.
“I am yet to know who that legal adviser is, though I am sure it’s not sheriff
but a man, Maidugu was said to be the one who collected the process,”
Akintola said.
But the judge over the matter, Okon Abang inquired from all parties if the
decision of the party to go ahead with its national convention was legal,
given the court order against it.
Earlier today, July 28, Akintola had informed the court that an application
have been served on all the parties involved.
He further sought to withdraw an application dated July 27.
But Ahmed Raji, counsel to the applicant said he served an application on
INEC but did not serve PDP because he did not recognize Obi as the counsel
to PDP.
Concerning the application by PDP, Raji said since the application for an
order to join certain parties in the matter will determine the validity of the
matter.

He said his applications for joinder was filed and served yesterday because
he received instructions on Tuesday, July 27, at about 9pm.
“My lord, we had to work overnight to ensure this,” Raji said.
He also said that he received a counter affidavit on his motion from PDP
counsel, as he prayed the court for a short time – an adjournment – to look
into the counter affidavit which he said is commendable.
Raji said: “This is a suit brought by former officers of the party and the
current officers are saying please allow us to be heard, which is very
surprising.”
Also, Alhassan Umar, a counsel to the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC), said the matter was assigned to him at about 5pm in
Wednesday, July 27.
He said the only process served by the plaintiff is the motion of injunction
filed on July 20, 2015, and that his grief is that the first defendant (INEC) is
yet to be served with the originating summons.
“My lord, in view of the fact that wr have not been served with the
originating summons, I am doubtful whether the motion is ripe for hearing,”
Umar said.
Umar said it is clear that the motion cannot be taken at this stage, but the
plaintiff’s counsel said there are contradictions in the replies.
He said: “In one breath, he wants your lordship disqualified from the process
and in another breath he is challenging your lordships jurisdiction to hear the
matter,” adding that his team is yet to be served with the second
application.
As at the time of filing this report, Abang was yet to rule on the legal
representation for the party and at the last hearing, Justice Abang had
ordered the disappearance of all counsels representing the PDP.
Modu-Sheriff had in a motion asked the court to make an order to stop the
acting chairman of the caretaker committee Ahmed Makarfi led faction from
conducting a national convention on August 17.
Meanwhile, a Federal High Court judge in Abuja Okon Abang on Thursday,
July 28, expressed his anger over misinterpretation of court’s order by the
media.
Abang who was visibly angry said it is wrong for the media to misinterpret a
court’s actions.
The judge was angry over the misinterpretation of a ruling he gave on
counsel representation for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in a matter
before him.


No comments:

Post a Comment