Reps’ defection violates court order -PDP

    
The Peoples Democratic Party on Wednesday protested the defection of some of its members in the House of Representatives to the All Progressives Congress, saying the development violated an order issued by an Abuja Federal High Court, which directed the lawmakers and the party to maintain status quo.

PDP lawyer, Chief Joe Gadzama (SAN), drew attention to the violation of the order at the continuation of hearing in a suit by Senator Bello Hayatu and 50 others, including the lawmakers who defected to the APC, to stop their seats from being declared vacant.

PDP National Chairman, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, PDP, and the Independent National Electoral Commissioners are the 1st to 5th defendants in the suit.

The presiding judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, had on December 17, 2013, ordered all the parties involved in the suit to maintain status quo, pending the determination of the matter.

However, when the matter came up on Wednesday, PDP counsel, Gadzama, informed the court that the order directing all the parties in the suit to maintain status quo had been violated by the defection of the lawmakers.

Gadzama noted that the violation of the court order had also emboldened some Senators, who have threatened to follow the Reps in leaving PDP for the APC.

Asking the court to re-emphasize the order, he said, “This court made an interim order and I think this court has been defied.

“This is not in my own interest alone but also in the interest of the court so that the public does not make a mockery of the judiciary.

“This court granted an order asking the parties to maintain status quo, now having granted that order, there is a problem with the interpretation of a very clear order.

“In the House of Representatives the plaintiffs have purportedly defected.”

The PDP lawyer further observed that, having seen that their brothers in the lower chamber have defected despite the court order and nothing happened, some senators are threatening to defect.

“We want this court to re-emphasize that order.

“The court becomes a toothless bulldog if orders are made and they are not obeyed.”

But Justice Mohammed did not make any pronouncement on Gadzama’s submissions, as he had earlier, in a short ruling, already adjourned the suit to February 5 to hear applications including a motion filed by PDP to set aside the defection of the lawmakers.

The motion could not be heard on Wednesday after it emerged that lawyers to other parties in the suit have not been able to serve relevant court processes on the 3rd defendant – the Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal.

Tambuwal was not represented by any lawyer in court during the proceedings, and lawyers to the other parties reported difficulties encountered in attempts to serve the court processes on him.

An application for extension of time to file processes, brought by Mr. Ken Ikonne, the counsel to the Senate President, was not heard following the discovery that the motion could only be served on the Speaker on Tuesday.

The motion filed by PDP to set aside the defection of the members of the National Assembly was also stalled after the counsel to the lawmakers, Mahmoud Magaji, SAN, informed the court that he has not been able to serve his counter-affidavit to the motion on the Speaker.

Magaji opposed Gadzama’s moves to get the court to hear the motion to set aside the defection, arguing that the application can only be heard after he had served his processes on the Speaker.

Gadzama observed that the Speaker may not be interested in the suit.

“From all indications the Speaker is not interested in the matter – he has decided to be neutral and we cannot be waiting for him forever,” he said.

He added that the Speaker has not sent a lawyer to represent him in the court, and also did not appear before the court by himself.

“Nobody is too big to appear before the court,” the lawyer stressed.

Ruling on the objections raised by Magaji to Gadzama’s bid to move the motion to set aside the defection, Justice Mohammed said the processes must be served on the Speaker, in line with the rules of the court, before the application could be heard.

As a result of the difficulties reportedly encountered in mostly unsuccessful attempts to serve the Speaker, the judge directed that henceforth, all processes meant for him (Speaker) should be handed over to the court bailiff, who will then serve the documents on Tambuwal.

“I hereby direct that all processes meant for service on the 3rd defendant (Speaker) be handed over to the bailiff of this court – we shall ensure that they are served on the 3rd defendant.”

In the suit, the plaintiffs want the court to restrain the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives from conducting any proceedings aimed at declaring their seats, and that of any other member of the PDP who intend to join another political party, vacant.

They equally want the court to restrain INEC from accepting nominations of any candidate and conducting bye-elections aimed at filing their seats.