The Supreme Court has permanently settled the dispute over the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) convention, according to Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, who said the matter had already been conclusively resolved by the apex court despite continued disagreement among factions.
Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Maduabuchi said the ruling of the Supreme Court had left no further legal ambiguity on the status of the disputed convention, stressing that lower courts had merely reaffirmed that position. “It has been permanently laid to rest by the Supreme Court. I think it’s not that the Supreme Court has been penalised.”
According to him, the Court of Appeal did not create a new position on the matter but only affirmed what had already been decided at the highest judicial level in the country. “The Court of Appeal’s job in three days is to simply reaffirm the position of the Supreme Court and also reaffirm the position of the Supreme Court.”
Maduabuchi insisted that the disputed PDP convention held in November had no legal effect, arguing that it was conducted in defiance of existing judicial pronouncements. “The Supreme Court was clear. November 15th and 16th was done in defiance of the Court of Appeal. So it is of no effect and it is completely lost.
Maduabuchi further argued that the legitimacy of the convention had already been extinguished by earlier court decisions, making it impossible for any faction to rely on it as a valid political foundation. “It has been permanently laid to rest by the Supreme Court.”
He also maintained that judicial authority on the matter was binding on all parties, warning that selective interpretation of judgments was legally untenable. “We are all bound. We must obey.”
On the issue of internal party legal representation raised in the dispute, Maduabuchi said only affected parties had the legal standing to challenge such matters, not opposing factions. “The people who have the right to complain is either the client represented by the person in the court below.”
Maduabuchi also addressed arguments surrounding the authority of party officials and legal advisers. “The people who have the right to complain is either the bill or the client represented by the person in the court below. Not the opposite party. The opposite party can go to the lawyer.”
He further explained that complaints over legal representation could not be initiated by rival groups unless they were directly involved in the proceedings. “Not the opposite party.”
On claims surrounding the validity of legal actions taken within the party structure, he maintained. “If it is found that we have flouted our rules of engagement, it is for the layperson, not the Supreme Court. Not for the courts.”
He stressed that disciplinary or professional complaints would ordinarily fall within regulatory bodies rather than the courts. “That issue should go to the LPBs. Or the complaint must go to EDB. Or go to the ones, the plaintiffs.”
Maduabuchi also addressed the tenure of party legal officers. “Ajibade was validly suspended for one month in November. And when he was suspended, the National Working Committee asked the National Legal Directorate of the PDP to take over his functions. Now, when he was… when the National Legal Directorate now took over… the issue was which of them could file that appeal. And the Court of Appeal said no. Ajibade, you were suspended, and when your suspension was lifted, your tenure had lapsed.”
He maintained that the court decisions collectively restored order within the party structure. “The judgement of the Court of Appeal, which is in Lebanon, is as clear as daylight, It has been permanently laid to rest by the Supreme Court. So it is of no effect and it is completely lost.”
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
