The legal fireworks over the purported suspension of the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress, Dr Umar Ganduje, commenced on Tuesday, with the Kano State High Court fixing May 27 to hear the preliminary objection, jurisdiction and joinder applications.
The court, presided over by Justice Usman Na’Abba, had, following the suspension of Ganduje by the APC executive in Dawakin ward, Tofa Local Government Area of Kano State on Monday, April 15, 2024, upheld the suspension on Tuesday, April 16, 2024, and fixed April 30, 2024, for hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
The judge would later vacate the suspension order.
Meanwhile, Ganduje also got an ex parte order delivered on Wednesday, April 17, 2024, by Justice A. M. Liman of the Federal High Court, also in Kano, who ruled that the purported suspension should not be implemented until the case was heard and determined.
At the hearing on Tuesday, the applicants, the Legal Adviser and Assistant Secretary of the ward executive, Haladu Gwanjo and Laminu Borguma, respectively, on behalf of the nine ward executive members, who suspended Ganduje, informed the court that they had filed a motion ex parte with a 13-paragraph affidavit, seeking an order for an interim injunction on Ganduje’s suspension.
They were represented by their counsel, Ibrahim Sa’ad.
The respondents joined in the matter are the APC, National Working Committee, APC Kano State Working Committee, and Ganduje.
When the case was mentioned on Tuesday, Sa’ad told the judge that they were served with the counter-affidavit by the respondent in court and, therefore, asked for another date to enable them to respond to the application.
Counsel fot the first, second and third respondents, M. M. Duru, did not object to the request.
“We have filed and served all parties our motion, dated April 24, challenging the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this matter,” Duru said.
The counsel for the fourth respondent, Lydia Oyewo, who also did not object to the new date, told the court that her client was not served with the court processes,
“We have not been served with the processes of the court. The plaintiff is in contempt of the court because they have failed to comply with the order of the court directing him to serve all the defendants in the matter.
“Particularly, we are appearing out of respect for the court. Our client has not been served, so we could not file any processes before the court.
“This matter is an intra-party matter and the court has held severally, even to the apex court. The court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine intra-party matters that have to do with leadership, membership and discipline of members.”
Parties seeking to be joined in the suit, led by their counsel, S.U. Jibril, informed the court of their position in joining the matter before it.
After listening to both counsel, Justice Na’Abba fixed May 27 to enable both parties to serve their processes and to hear the three applications.
Punch