Judiciary
Separate appeals stop case halting APC ward congresses in Bayelsa

Two separate notices filed before the Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt have prevented a Bayelsa State High Court in Yenagoa presided over by Justice Iniekenimi Uzaka from proceeding with the hearing in a suit before the court stopping the All Progressives Congress from conducting its ward congresses in the state.

Uzaka had on July 31, the eve of the ward congresses, granted an interlocutory injunction following a motion filed by some aggrieved members of the APC in the state who sought the order of the court to halt the exercise.

He eventually adjourned the case to August 9 for continuation but when proceedings commenced on Monday, counsel to the APC, Shuaibu Aruwa informed him that there were two separate notices before the appellate court seeking orders to direct the lower court to stay execution on its interlocutory order.

However, there was a mild drama in the court as another counsel, C. T Olorogun also announced an appearance for the APC, claiming that he had the directive of the party to hold brief for it at the State High Court.

Olorogun also claimed that he had been the Legal Officer of the APC in Bayelsa and had also received the processes filed by the claimants stopping the party’s ward congresses on July 31 in the state, insisting that his representation was legal and mandated by the party.

But Aruwa countered Olorogun, claiming that he was the authentic counsel mandated by the national headquarters of the APC to appear for the case.

He went ahead to prove his appearance by presenting to the presiding judge a copy of a letter from the APC national secretariat mandating him to represent the party in the case, adding that Olorogun had been suspended and expelled by the party for alleged anti-party activities and therefore could not appear for the party.

Uzaka, after listening to both counsels, upheld the argument of Aruwa because “he has the required letter of authority from the national headquarters of the APC mandating him to represent it in court.”

With the argument and counter-argument settled, Aruwa in an oral application urged the court to adjourn the hearing on motion indefinitely, pending the determination of the two separate notices at the Appeal Court.

But counsel to the claimants, Perekedou Fawei objected to Aruwa’s oral application for adjournment, arguing that it was an abuse of court processes and it (the oral application) ought to be supported by an affidavit, application and motion.

Uzaka, however, adjourned the matter to September 27 pending the outcome of the two separate notices before the appellate court.

culled from PUNCH