Unease in Enugu PDP as court fails to vacate order

Unease enveloped the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Enugu State on Friday, November 28 after the High Court declined to vacate an order restraining the party from allowing delegates elected on November 1 to participate in the governorship primaries.

The court also declined to rule on the preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction to hear the suit.

Chief Judge, Innocent Umezulike, had earlier ruled against the peace talks between Governor Sullivan Chime’s loyalists and those of Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, who reportedly agreed to work together and to withdraw the court cases against the Chime camp.

However, on November 28, the judge declined to vacate his earlier order and adjourned proceedings to Friday, December 12 for both parties to brief the court on their settlement out of court.

The judge had adjourned the matter to November 28 for ruling on the preliminary objection raised by PDP lead counsel, Alex Izinyon, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the motion, which subject matter was the same as that decided by the Abuja Federal High Court on Monday, November 24.

When the case came up for ruling on November 28, counsel to the plaintiff, Justina Offiah, told the court that she had the instruction of her client, Charles Okafor, to inform the court that the parties were already holding talks to settle out of court.

She said: “The parties herein and others concerned with this matter are right now in the middle of discussion for amicable resolution of their differences.

“The consensus is that the court should allow the process of settlement and we hope to come back and inform the court of the final settlement.”

But PDP counsel, Obinna Nnaka, who stood in for Izinyon, opposed the application, saying he had no instruction of his clients to consent to it, submitting that the ruling should be delivered to determine whether the matter should continue or not.

Umezulike asked Nnaka to contact his clients on the telephone to inform them of the new development.

Nnaka left the court to make the call, and when he returned after three minutes, he said his clients requested that if the ruling should be suspended, the interlocutory order earlier made by the court should be vacated, while the peace process should go on or the entire matter withdrawn from court.

Tagbo Ike, counsel to the second set of defendants/applicants, Chinenye Orji, Orji Orji, and Cletus Akalusi, argued that it would be wrong to keep the ruling on the court’s jurisdiction in abeyance without vacating the earlier order.

His words: “I am aware that the parties communed to settle. I am also further aware that they have settled and my instruction is that the plaintiff will withdraw the suit this morning to solidify the settlement.

“The application for adjournment by the plaintiff’s counsel without first vacating the earlier order will go against the settlement because it will give the impression that the parties are still at war. You cannot say you are settling when one party is at arm and another has no arm.

“If the court must adjourn without the suit being withdrawn, our application is that the earlier order of the court should be put in abeyance. Leaving the matter pending is like a farmer going to farm to cultivate corn and carrying squirrel with him.”

Ike added that both parties have their eyes on the primaries and a situation where they go to primaries and one of the parties has a court order in his pocket does not help peaceful settlement.

But Offiah insisted that since the peace process, which was already on course would be holistic, all processes should be put on hold pending when the parties returned to court to inform it of the outcome.