Go…going…gone! Court Strikes Out Suits Challenging Oshiomhole-Led APC’s NWC Dissolution

By Yemi Oyeyemi, Abuja

Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Federal High Court Abuja, on Tuesday struck out two separate suits challenging the dissolution of the Oshiomhole-led National Working Committee of the All Progressives Congress. APC.

The first suit was filed by a former South South National Vice Chairman of the party, Chief Hilliard Eta in the name of APC while the second suit was instituted by a former APC Youth leader in Abia state, Barrister Kalu Kalu Agu.

Specifically, both suits sought an order of court to determine the legality or otherwise of the June 17, 2020 National Executive Committee meeting which dissolved the NWC, and appointed a National Caretaker Committee led by Yobe State Governor, Mai-Mala Buni.

Justice Taiwo held that the separate plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute their cases against the party.

Ruling in the separate preliminary objections filed by the defendants, the court held that the plaintiffs did not show or prove how the dissolution of the NWC on June 17, 2020 by 16 out of 20 members of APC NEC infracted on their civil rights and obligation more than any other member of the party.

“There must be a nexus between a plaintiff and the cause of action” the court held.

The judge noted that the Kalu Agu did not fit in properly into who a plaintiff is, while the 2nd plaintiff, Hilliard Eta “referred to himself as a regular member of the party”.

The court found out that for the APC to be a plaintiff, there must be existence of a faction.

“In an affidavit deposed to by the 2nd plaintiff, there was nowhere he claimed to belong to a faction,” the court stated.

Consequently, the judge struck out the name of APC as a plaintiff in the suit.

“I’m of the well considered view that issues raised by the plaintiff are not justiceable. They are issues of internal affairs of a political party,” he said.

Having resolved the issues raised by the defendants in their favour, the court held that “it is sheer waste of time and there is no reason to consider the substantive matter,” the judge reasoned.

The judge therefore struck out the two separate cases.