In this report, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN), counsel to the PDP, ventilates his frustration with the unnecessary attitude of lawyers and litigants in instituting cases that are of no significance. AMEH EJEKWONYILO reports
The judgment of an Abuja Federal High Court which declared that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lacks power to declare vacant the seats of National Assembly members who defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC), has brought to the fore, the seeming trivialities in the attitude of lawyers and litigants in instituting cases that are of no substance.
Hon. Justice Ahmed Mohammed held that the case was an academic exercise which the court cannot adjudicate upon. Justice Mohammed, in a judgment, said that the PDP and its Chairman, having filed two separate suits, praying that the seats of the lawmakers be declared vacant, could no longer proceed with their threat while the cases are pending.
The judgment was on the suit by the 79 legislators – 22 Senators and 57 Representatives- who sued the PDP and leaders of the National Assembly over threat by the party to declare their seats vacant.
The plaintiffs include Senator Bukola Saraki, Danjuma Goje, Magnus Abe and Abdulahi Adamu.
Justice Mohammed said that since the kernel of the suit by the legislators was the threat by the PDP to declare their seats vacant, the threat no longer existed because the party and its Chairman had realised they lacked any such power and had submitted the issue to the court for determination.
The court also held that since the issue of whether or not the seats of the defecting lawmakers could be declared vacant was yet to be resolved in the pending cases, the lawmakers’ suit was no longer necessary.
He held that the lawmakers have the opportunity of arguing their position in the pending cases.
He consequently struck out the suit by the lawmakers.
The court also dismissed a motion by the lawmakers for an indefinite adjournment, in view of their pending application before the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
The plaintiffs had referred a portion of the case, concerning the interpretation of Section 68(1)(g) to the Court of Appeal for interpretation and urged the trial court not to deliver its judgment, but await the decision of the appellate court.
In dismissing the motion, Justice Mohammed said that it was strange that a party would seek an adjournment over 60 days after the court had concluded trial in a case and was ready to deliver judgment.
In the two suits by the PDP, now pending before Justice Mohammed, the party wants the leaders of both chambers of the National Assembly to be compelled to declare the seats of the defecting legislators vacant.
The first of the two marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/65/2013 has the Senate President, David Mark, 12 defecting Senators and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.
The second marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/57/2014 has Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, 40 defecting Reps members and INEC as defendants.
The PDP, in the suit against Mark and others, posed three questions for the court’s determination:
*Whether the 1st defendant (Mark) by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution (as amended) does not owe a legal duty to declare vacant the seats of the 2nd to 12 defendants, members of the Senate who decamped to the All Progressives Congress (APC) without satisfying the conditions stipulated under Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution.
*Whether the 2nd to 12th defendants, having been elected to the Senate on the platform of the 1st plaintiff (PDP), can in view of the provisions of Section 68(2) of the Constitution and having failed to meet the conditions laid down in Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution, validly decamp to the All Progressives Congress (APC) and retain their seats.
*Whether having regards to questions 1 and 2 above, the 13th defendant (INEC) are not obliged to conduct elections to fill the vacant seats in the affected senatorial districts
They proceeded to seek the following reliefs:
*A declaration that the 1st defendant owes a legal duty by virtue of Section 68(2) of the Constitution to declare vacant the seats of the 2nd to 12th defendants, members of the Senate who decamped to the All Progressives Congress (APC) without satisfying the conditions stipulated under Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution.
*A declaration that the 2nd to 12th defendants, having been elected to the senate on the platform of the 1st plaintiff cannot in view of the provisions of 68(2) of the Constitution, and having failed to meet the conditions laid down in Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot validly decamp to the All Progressives Congress (APC) and retain their seats.
*An order declaring the seats of the 2nd to 12th defendants vacant, the 2nd to 12th defendants having decamped to the APC without satisfying the conditions stipulated under Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Alternatively, it is praying for an order of mandamus directing the 1st defendant to declare the seats of the 2nd to 12th defendants vacant, having allegedly decamped to the APC in the absence of any factionalization of the 1st plaintiff”.
*An order of the court directing the 13th defendant (INEC) to immediately organise and conduct elections into the senatorial districts to fill the vacant seats.
Responding to the judgment, Chief Gadzama (SAN) said: “The court specifically held that it is alien to our legal system and that is an indictment on some of us .As said earlier, the threat came from PDP as a party, not from the senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives that have the constitutional mandate or powers to declare those seats vacant. And so the threat like we did say was an empty threat”.
So, it is not a matter that the court has glossed it eyes over. I want to believe that there should be sanity in our approach to court, and lawyers should advise their client appropriately. It is not every case that comes our way that should see the four walls of the courtroom. There must be end to litigation. They have succeeded to a little extent by arresting the judgment; it should have come out last Wednesday.
Chief Gadzama lamented that: “one disheartening thing is the ability of the plaintiffs to use the machinery of the court to occasion untold injustice, hardship and annoyance, pain and irritation on the defendant. You can imagine this matter has been there for seven months; at the end of the day, no jurisdiction. It is painful, my heart bleeds. The question is beyond this judgment, what do we do as lawyers, what do we do as judicial officers, what do we do as stakeholders to arrest this situation and nip it at the earliest opportunity rather than keeping such cases.
There are so many cases like that until they go to the Supreme Court and the apex court says no jurisdiction. So all efforts, energy and resources, human time wasted for no good reason. And you can imagine the negative consequences that would have meted out on people”. Justice Mohammed, therefore, assured the affected lawmakers that the party cannot, in anyway, influence the court’s decision on the two cases it filed on the issue.
