The court presided over by the Enugu Chief Judge, Justice Innocent Umezulike said Umeh’s tenure elapsed in December, 2010.
It could be re-called that an aggrieved member of the Party, Mr. Jude Okolie had approached the court in June 2012 asking it to declare Umeh’s stay in office beyond December 2010 unconstitutional.
Okolie asked the court to determine “whether going by article 18 of the APGA constitution, the defendant, (Umeh) can be re-elected other than through a secret ballot system in an election organized by the National Executive Committee, NEC of the party.
“Whether the defendant can legitimately remain in office after 2010 without any valid national convention in line with the constitution of APGA”, adding that in line with the provisions of the party, Umeh was also supposed to have vacated office at least two months to a fresh election.
In challenging the suit, Umeh through his counsel, Patrick Ikwueto raised preliminary objections, which bordered on the jurisdiction of the court as well as the locu standi of the plaintiff.
According to him, the non-joinder of the APGA in the suit would lead to injustice. He also claimed that the plaintiff had since been expelled from the party, and as such lacked the locu standi to pursue the suit.
According to him, the non-joinder of the APGA in the suit would lead to injustice. He also claimed that the plaintiff had since been expelled from the party, and as such lacked the locu standi to pursue the suit.
He also told the court that the suit was a domestic and internal matter of the party, insisting that the court had no right to dabble into such issues.
However, in his judgment, Justice Umezulike who dealt with all the issues raised by the defendant said although it may be desirable to bring in APGA, “failure in my view cannot affect the action in any way”.
However, in his judgment, Justice Umezulike who dealt with all the issues raised by the defendant said although it may be desirable to bring in APGA, “failure in my view cannot affect the action in any way”.
The court held that independent of APGA as a party to the suit, it can interpret section 18 of its constitution.
“The provisions of APGA constitution which is before me is very clear, it is written in English and not in any strange language; so the position of this court is APGA as a political party is not indispensable in exercising the interpretative powers of this court”.
“The provisions of APGA constitution which is before me is very clear, it is written in English and not in any strange language; so the position of this court is APGA as a political party is not indispensable in exercising the interpretative powers of this court”.
On the issue of locu standi, the court also ruled in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the expulsion of the plaintiff from the party does not exist to the knowledge of the court.
“If the said 3-man panel that recommended his expulsion really existed, where is the notice of proceedings, when was the plaintiff invited and was he given fair hearing? In the absence of all this, no sane court can hold that the plaintiff was expelled. It is a nullity; it was contrived for the essence of this suit”.
“If the said 3-man panel that recommended his expulsion really existed, where is the notice of proceedings, when was the plaintiff invited and was he given fair hearing? In the absence of all this, no sane court can hold that the plaintiff was expelled. It is a nullity; it was contrived for the essence of this suit”.
Umezulike also faulted the defendant’s opinion that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the court. He noted that it was the constitutional responsibility of courts to interpret statutes, documents, agreements and constitutions binding individuals, or associations together.
“Accordingly, the court shall not run away from this suit in terror at the slightest mention of the word ‘domestic affair’. The court has a duty to insist that rule of law and constitutional provisions prevail in political milieu”, he averred.
The court, therefore, declared that the convention of APGA, which took place in February 2011 was unconstitutional, null and void and that Umeh’s tenure came to a legitimate end on the 2nd day of December, 2010.
The defendant’s claim that he was re-elected during a national congress of the party held in Awka, Anambra State in February, 2011 did also not change the mind of the court. The court observed that section 18 of APGA constitution was violated in the said election, as Umeh and other members of the national exco of the party were only presented through a voice vote, other than a secret ballot, as provided by the party’s constitution.
“By law, he has since 2nd Day of December, 2010 seized to be the APGA national chairman. I have not said that the defendant is barred from presenting himself for election, he may as well win, but the court insist that such election must comply strictly with the provisions of the party’s constitution.
“He is not and has not been the party’s national chairman since December 2, 2010”, the court further held.
It said following from the above, the NEC of APGA is bound to meet and fix a date for election, stressing that “the defendant cannot be re-elected other than by a secret ballot system in such election fixed by the NEC.
“His occupation of office after 2010 is illegal, ultra vires the constitution of APGA. He is thereby restrained from parading himself as the national Chairman of APGA”
Curled from DAILY POST NG.