The crisis rocking the National Working Committee (NWC) of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) seems not over as the National Legal Adviser (NLA), Ahmad Usman El- Marzuq has recommended the expulsion of the National Vice Chairman, Northwest, Salihu Moh. Lukman.
Lukman had dragged the party, the National Chairman, Senator Abdullahi Adamu and the National Secretary, Senator Iyiola Omisore to court for an alleged breach of the party constitution.
In a memo to the APC National Chairman,Senator Abdullahi Adamu, the National Legal Adviser advised the party on steps to take to address the legal action taken by the Zonal Chairman.
The memo which was at the instance of the National Chairman, was to sought the advice of the NLA. It was further learnt that the document will be used to determine Lukman’s fate at the proposed NWC meeting slated for Wednesday, May 3rd at the party National Secretariat in Abuja.
In the memo dated 28th of April to the National Chairman and copied to National Secretary, all NWC members and the Progressive Governors’ Forum (PGF), the NLA said in his “legal opinion” Lukman’s action of instituting a court action over the failure to convene meetings of the relevant party organs as mandated by the APC Constitution, should attract explosion from the party.
The Zonal Chairman had on Thursday commenced legal action against the leadership of the NWC following their refusal to consider his two letters and the 7-day ultimatum given to the National Chairman to commence the process to convene the meeting of the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting before May 29, 2023.
Reacting to the development in the memo, El- Marzuq said he had painstakingly gone through the reliefs sought and the affidavit in support of the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons with a fine-tooth comb and concluded that the suit borders mainly on the internal or domestic affairs of the Party which has been held in a plethora of decided cases to be non-justiciable.
According to the National Legal Adviser In the case of WAZIRI v. PDP & ANOR (2022) LPELR-58803(CA), it was held thus:
“It is settled law that, no Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints or matters about intra-party disputes of political parties. It has long been settled by the Supreme Court in Onuoha v. Okafor & Ors. (1983) 14 NSCLR 494 at 499 – 507 that, where the relief sought is on leadership of or intra-party dispute between members of a same political party or between a_member or and the political party, only the party can resolve the dispute.
“This is because a political party is a voluntary organization or association. Persons join political parties of their own choice, therefore, where there is any internal disagreement, it must be resolved by a majority decision of the members. That being so, any dispute over its internal affairs is not justiciable and no Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim on such dispute.’
Arguing further, the NLA maintained that issues bordering on the management of political parties have equally been held to be outside the jurisdiction of the Courts.
Referring to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, Lukman made heavy weather about the fact that the meeting of the National Executive Committee ought to be held every quarter by the provisions of the Party’s Constitution and that the failure to do has greatly affected the smooth administration of the Party.
But El- Marzuq noted that “a cursory look at Article 25.2 (i) of the Party’s Constitution would reveal that it is not mandatory to convene a meeting of the National Executive Committee every quarter as postulated by the Plaintiff rather it is at the discretion of the National Working Committee or the request in writing by one – third of the members of the National Executive Committee.
“For ease of reference, Article 25.2 (i) is reproduced hereunder as follows: ‘The National Executive Committee shall meet every quarter and or at any time decided by the National Working Committee or at the request made in writing by one-third of the members of the National Executive Committee, provided that not less than 14 days notice is given for the meeting’.
“From the above, it is clear that the Party did not breach any provision of its Constitution by not calling for a meeting of NEC every quarter to present activities of the Party to the members of NEC as alluded to by the Plaintiff and thus his suit ought to be dismissed by the Court for lacking in merit.
“The Plaintiff’s case revolves around the internal/domestic affairs of the Party which can only be resolved through the internal dispute resolution machinery of the Party. On this point see the Supreme Court case of OSAGIE & ORS vs ENOGHAMA & ORS (2022) LPELR – 58903.
“By resorting to a Court action against the Party, it is my recommendation that disciplinary measures by the Party’s Constitution should be meted out against the Plaintiff particularly Article 21.5 (v) which states thus: ‘Any member who files an action in Court of law against the Party or any of its officers on any matter or matters relating to the discharge of duties of the Party without first exhausting the avenues for redress provided for in this Constitution shall automatically stand expelled from the Party on filing such action and no appeal against expulsion as stipulated in this clause shall be entertained until the withdrawal of the action from Court by the member’.”