The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is in a dilemma over its conduct of the Bayesla State gubernatorial primary election where it excluded incumbent governor, Timipre Sylva, who is challenging the action in court. Leon Usigbe writes that while the conduct of the exercise is widely seen as a violation of the court process, the party is maintaining its stance that it did nothing wrong.THE Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was furious at the interpretation given to a motion on notice it received, penultimate week, in the matter brought before an Abuja High Court by Bayelsa State governor, Timipre Sylva, concerning the position of the gubernatorial ticket of the party in the forthcoming election in the state.The party decided not to clear him to contest the primary in which a member of the House of Representatives, Henry Seriake Dickson, was declared winner. Having failed to get the necessary clearance to contest in the primary election from the PDP National Working Committee (NWC), in spite of having been cleared earlier by the party's Gubernatorial Screening Committee and Gubernatorial Appeal Panel, Sylva sought to stop the exercise and revert to the ticket he obtained in the primary election conducted in January. The court had ruled that his tenure as Bayelsa State governor had not lapsed and, consequently, aborted the last gubernatorial election in the state.In approaching the court, Sylva wanted an order of interim injunction restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the PDP and Abubakar Kawu Baraje (the party's Acting National Chairman), listed as first, second and third defendants, from conducting ward congress and also from embarking on any activities leading to the holding of any fresh gubernatorial primary election for Bayelsa State on the 19 November, 2011 pending the determination of the motion on notice.The governor did not want a fresh name to be submitted to the INEC as the gubernatorial candidate of the PDP for the February 2012 election, until the motion on notice was determined. In the alternative, he wanted the court to issue an order of interim injunction mandating the defendants to publish his name as an aspirant for the 19 November, 2011 gubernatorial primary election scheduled for Bayelsa State.While not refusing the prayers sought by Sylva, the judge, Honourable Justice G.O. Kolawole, however, put the PDP and other defendants on notice of same and ordered them to, within 72 hours of being served with the said motion on notice, show why Sylva should not be entitled to the preservatory orders as contained in the motion ex-parte.The court order served on the PDP stated: 'That in the event that the defendants when served with the originating summons, the motion on notice and the enrolment of these orders, the 2nd and 3rd defendants in particular, were unable to show such reasonable and or just cause why the orders shall not be made, this court will have no hesitation in either granting the said orders in the way and manner as couched or may grant prayer 4 (to publish Sylva as aspirant) as the alternative prayer as couched in the motion ex-parte.'That in the event, perhaps, unlikely that the 2nd defendant, in defiance of these orders, take steps which may be prejudicial, perhaps subversive of these orders and of these proceedings before the return day which I have fixed at 22/11/2011, this court will, without much ado, proceed to making such necessary orders to nullify such steps or decisions taken once they are served with the processes and/or orders made herein in order to uphold and protect the sanctity of the court's processes and to vindicate the integrity of the court as the established constitutional arbiter between the state and the citizens and the citizens inter se; that the originating summons together with the motion and the certified true copy of the enrolment of these orders made herein shall be served on the defendants and the defendants, 2nd and 3rd defendants in particular, shall, within 72 hours of such service, show cause why the plaintiff shall not be entitled to have the orders sought by his motion ex-parte, dated 14/11/11, granted in his favour.'From the foregoing, the PDP could argue that there was no explicit order for it not to proceed with the Bayelsa primary election. On the other hand, the court warned the party not to do anything that may be 'prejudicial, perhaps subversive' of its order and proceeding before the return day of 22 November, 2011. The PDP conducted the Bayelsa primary election on 19 November, 2011 before that return date. In doing so, despite the order, it would appear that the party gave little regard to the position of the court and may now face the consequence outlined by the order.The order says that the court will, without much ado, proceed to make such necessary orders to nullify such steps or decisions taken once the defendants are served with the processes and/or orders made in order to uphold and protect the sanctity of the court's processes and to vindicate the integrity of the court. This sets the stage for a prolonged legal tussle should Sylva choose to pursue the case to its logical conclusion.The PDP is, however, unimpressed with critics who say it has violated court orders in the conduct of the primary election. For the party, such critics have misinterpreted or misrepresented the legal status of primaries because the PDP did not receive any court order stopping the conduct of the election. The party's position is that what it received from the court in the suit filed by Sylva was a motion on notice with an order asking the party to show cause within 72 hours why the preservatory orders sought might not be granted on the return date, which is 22November 2011. According to the national publicity secretary of the PDP, Professor Rufai Ahmed Alkali, the party immediately complied by filing a process showing the cause.Alkali gave an insight into why the PDP went ahead with the election. He said the party was conscious of the datelines given to political parties by the INEC, within which they must submit names of their candidates for the governorship election.The party, he said was also guided by the provision of Section 87(10) of the Electoral Act, 2011 (as amended) which precludes courts from stopping the conduct of primaries and general elections. PDP was confident that in view of the provisions of the Electoral Act, the judge could not have given an order to stop the conduct of the primaries as widely believed.Alkali presented the PDP as a political party that respected the rule of law, saying that, as the ruling party, the party had always led by example in respecting the decisions of the judiciary. 'To do the contrary will amount to disservice to our nation. We wish to restate categorically that we did not defy any court order on Bayelsa.'We have only been placed on notice to appear on 22 November, to show cause why certain prayers in the court papers should not be granted. It was not an order to stop the primary, contrary to all the propaganda. It was not an injunction. Surely, if there was an order stopping the primary, the party would have obeyed that order as we have always done in the past. Our legal team has already been briefed and is ready to address all the issues in court,' the party's megaphone had posited.The PDP legal team has gone to the Appeal Court to challenge the motion on notice. This suggests that there is something that the party is not quite comfortable with in the order it received concerning the Bayelsa primary election.Now that the party has a gubernatorial candidate other than Sylva, the battle is just about to begin, and all eyes will be on the court to determine whether or not the PDP is actually a party based on the rule of law as it claims.
Click here to read full news..
