Court Rejects Bid to Stop PDP Congresses in Kaduna State
The Federal High Court in Abuja rejected a bid to halt the PDP's planned congresses in Kaduna State, advising caution while the case proceeds. A hearing on an interlocutory injunction is set for August 27.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected a request to prevent the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) from proceeding with its scheduled Local Government and State Congresses in Kaduna State. The ruling, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu, also dismissed a plea to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from overseeing these crucial congresses, which are intended to elect new party officials at both local and state levels.
The case was brought before the court by six disgruntled PDP members from Kaduna State, who sought an ex-parte order to halt the congresses. Represented by their lawyer, Mr. Affis Matanmi, the plaintiffs argued that the congresses should be stopped. However, after considering the submissions, Justice Lifu determined that the plaintiffs' request did not merit the issuance of a restraining order. As a result, the court refused to grant their application.
Despite denying the request, Justice Lifu offered a word of caution to the PDP and INEC, advising them to refrain from taking further actions related to the congresses, given the ongoing legal dispute. The judge's advice suggests a careful approach as the suit against the party and the electoral body continues to unfold.
The legal battle, identified as suit number FHC/ABJ/CD/1144/2024, was filed by six PDP members from Kaduna State: Sheu Isa Dan Ina, Mutari Shuiabu, Yusuf Suleiman, Nura Waziri, Malam Mansur Alasan, and Jaafar Abubakar. These plaintiffs contend that the party's planned congresses could undermine their interests and have therefore sought judicial intervention.
The People’s Democratic Party, its Kaduna State chapter, and INEC are named as the first to third defendants in the case, respectively.
As the legal process advances, Justice Lifu has scheduled August 27 for the hearing of a motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction, which will allow the court to consider further arguments from both sides.
What's Your Reaction?