Lawyers want PDP factional Chairmen to appeal Court’s Judgments

Some lawyers in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) have called on the two People’s Democratic Party (PDP) factional Chairmen to appeal the conflicting judgments of two Federal High courts

The lawyers, who spoke with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Monday, agreed that it was only the higher court that could help to put an end to the lingering crises and give a clear position of the law.

Some of them also called on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to appeal the judgment instead of the embattled chairmen.

Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, Abuja had ruled that the PDP should not hold its planned convention slated for Aug. 17.

Abang’s ruling gave an edge to Sen. Ali-Modu Sheriff who had approached the court for a prayer to suspend the planned convention.

Another Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt and headed by Justice Ibrahim Wakila gave another judgment for PDP to hold its planned convention.

The judgment by Justice Wakila was sequel to Sen. Ahmed Makarfi led caretaker committee’s prayer to allow the convention to hold in Port Harcourt.

Mr Patrick Abang, a legal practitioner, said that the recent conflicting judgments by the two Federal High Courts were a slap on the judiciary.

“The judgment has brought confusion to the entire polity as to which one is the correct position of the law.

“The best advice is to move to court of appeal for a clear interpretation of the judgment.

He said the judgment has also put INEC into a state quagmire, total confusion. INEC legal team need to choose between the two judgments and pick the one that is less expensive.

“INEC will have to choose the one that will give it less problem but if you have to go into jurisprudential, INEC may have to consider the judgment that come first,’’ Abang said.

Mr Richard Eifu, another lawyer, affirmed that if the judgments of the two Federal High Courts must be tested, the two factional Chairmen must appeal the judgments of the lower courts.

According to Eifu, the conflicting judgments have really reduced the good face of the judiciary which he said was not good for the country’s nascent democracy.

“Two courts of coordinate jurisdiction coming out with two different judgments, this is not good for the country democracy; I know the two courts acted purely base on what was presented before them,’’ Eifu said.

Another lawyer, Mr Itodo Joseph, who aligned himself with the submission of the first two lawyers said that if the need be, INEC should carry the cross.

According to Joseph, INEC should be the one to appeal on whose court judgment to follow among the conflicting judgments.

“INEC should go to court by way of originating summons, it will ask the court to interpret the position of the law as regards to the issue at hand.

“The other option is for INEC to stay clear and observe the outcome of the appeal by the parties involved. If INEC take any action now aside from this, it will be subjudice.

“This is a trial time for the judiciary, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) needs to interfere in this issue and give a clear position of the law, whatever he says will be the final,’’ Joseph said.

According to him, inefficacy of one of the three arms of the government renders democracy ineffective and the principle of rule of law might not be attained.

Mr Elom Aleke, a lawyer, also want INEC to appeal the judgments instead of the embattled Chairmen.

According to Aleke, the presence of the Federal High Court in some states was to allow for administrative convenience.

“The issue at hand is not healthy for the country’s democracy; the Port Harcourt Court supposed to have refers the matter to the CJN since the Port Harcourt judgment came after the Abuja own.

“Nigeria as a democratic nation is yet to stabilize, courts need to be careful during their pronouncement,’’ Aleke stressed