From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
After a marathon court session, the Supreme Court yesterday reserved judgment on the pestering leadership crisis that has bedevilled the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The crisis got to the apex court through an appeal lodged on March 16, 2017, by the Senator Ahmed Makarfi-led Caretaker Committee of the party against the judgement of the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal, which declared Senator Ali Modu Sheriff as the legitimate national chairman of the party.
Before the decision, a five-man panel of Justices of the court, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, dismissed a preliminary application brought by Sheriff against the hearing of the appeal.
After losing the first leg of the legal tussle, Sheriff’s counsel, Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN) proceeded to canvass submissions against the substantive appeal.
He argued that the sacked National Caretaker Committee of the party led by Makarfi, having been declared illegal by the February 17, 2017 verdict of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt, lacked the powers to take decisions for the party, including initiating court proceedings in its name.
The erstwhile Attorney General of the Federation further said 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 decision and did not intent to challenge it.
Sheriff further contended, in an address written by Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), that since the Court of Appeal, in its February 17 judgment, declared the 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.
In addition, 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.
However, in a counter argument, the Makarfi Committee, led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), had urged the apex 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 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’ briefs, 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 it to be struck out. It argued that since the appeal was not filed by Sheriff and others, they lacked the right to apply to withdraw it.
After listening to arguments of counsels to parties in the suit, Justice Onnoghen reserved judgment in the matter till a date to be communicated to the parties.