Posted by From Josephine Lohor and Funsho Muraina in Abuja on
In a surprise move that may have been based on political calculations, President Olusegun Obasanjo has recalled five of the aides of Vice-President Atiku Abu-bakar he had earlier ordered sacked.
• Appeal Court remits suspension case to High Court
In a surprise move that may have been based on political calculations, President Olusegun Obasanjo has recalled five of the aides of Vice-President Atiku Abu-bakar he had earlier ordered sacked.
Also returned to Atiku's official residence were some of the vehicles in his official fleet earlier confiscated by the Presidency in the heat of last face-off between him and Obasanjo.
All these came as the Appeal Court remits the case on Atiku's suspension from the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the lower court with an order that the matter be reassigned to another judge of the Federal Capital Territory High Court.
When THISDAY got the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Mrs. Oluremi Oyo, last night, she said she was not aware of the development concerning the recall of Atiku's sacked aides which she claimed was news to her.
Atiku's recalled aides, according to THISDAY findings, include the Principal Secretary, Alhaji Abdullahi Nyako; Political Adviser, Prof. A.D. Yahaya and Personal Physician, Dr. Azu Ndukwe. Also recalled are a cameraman in the VP office, by name Jerry and protocol assistant, Nazir Mahmoud.
According to THISDAY checks, the letter dated December 22, 2006 was written by Mr. Steve Oronsaye, Permanent Secretary, State House, and directed to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Uffot Ekaette who was directed to effect the recall.
The affected officers who were copied, got their letters Wednesday afternoon after the court session fueling speculations among Atiku's aides that the letters might have been backdated to address the issue of whether or not Atiku has been sacked by the President which is now an issue for judicial determination.
Atiku's aides also confirmed that some vehicles that were earlier withdrawn from the Vice-President in the heat of the purported sack have also been returned.
It is recalled that the presidency had at different times moved against some of Atiku's aides. For instance, his aide-de-camp, Abdul Yari Shuyan Lafia was removed by the Police authorities for what they termed unfavourable security reports. Lafia was later arrested and interrogated for sundry allegations which included funding and participation in the operations of Turaki Vanguard.
Others who have also been sacked included General Jafar Isa, Dr. Adeolu Akande, Prof. Sam Oyoivbare, Mr. Chris Mammah, Mr. Shima Ayah and Mallam Garba Shehu.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has remitted the
case on Atiku's suspension from the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) back to the lower court with an order that the case be reassigned to another judge of the Federal Capital Territory High Court.
However, the court said that striking out the suit would be allowing the court to be enslaved by the rules of court and that in the interest of justice, the matter should return to the lower court and ordered that it be properly commenced with a writ of
summons instead of the originating summons.
The judgment delivered yesterday's afternoon by Justice Chidi Uwaoma Uwa also faulted the trial judge at the Gwagwalada High court who she said erred in law by prejudging the substantive suit with his finding in the interlocutory ruling and set aside the ruling.
Justice Uwa said that the lower court presided over by Justice Mudasiru Oniyangi in the ruling that there was no higher authority than the National Working Committee.
According to Uwa, the issues of which version of the party's constitutions tendered by the parties to the suit was valid or which of the party's organ was supreme in taking decision on suspension and others are contentious matters which would have
required evidence to be led by parties.
She said that a trial court has the jurisdiction to convert an Originating Summons and order pleadings to be filed by the parties where the Originating Summons is found to be improper and that the judge failed to do 'after seeing that the affidavits of parties were conflicting and irreconcilable."
That he went ahead to decide a substantive relief sought by the Respondent contrary to the rule that a court should not decide a substantive issue in a case while delivering its ruling on an interlocutory issue was an error which an appellate court would not ignore.
'This finding should have been after the trial of the substantive suit on merit and not on an interlocutory application. For this reason the trial judge is hereby disqualified from adjudicating on this matter, she said.
'This case is hereby remitted to the Chief Judge of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory for reassignment to another judge other than M.N. Oniyangi, J. who should order parties to file pleadings in view of the conflicting facts of this case.
"A trial court must be cautious in deciding interlocutory issues raised in a suit in order to avoid taking a decision on the substantive issue in the suit, an act which is usually frowned at by the law."
Two other justices of the court, Rhodes Vivour and Olufunmilola Adekeye agreed with the judgment and allowed the appeal filed by the appellants.
Fielding question from journalists after the court session, counsel to Vice President Atiku, Emeka Ngige (SAN) said that his client had already the party and the judgment was only good for future reference as well as being an academic exercise.
According to him, Atiku was no more a member of PDP since the marriage between him and the party had broken down irretrievably.
But on his own, counsel to the appellants, J.K Gadzama who had commended the judge for a well considered judgment said that their position at the lower court had been vindicated.
In a related development, the case instituted at the Federal High Court by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar asking the court to declare that his indictment by an administrative panel was illegal has been adjourn till next week for parties to adopt their written briefs.
Vice president Atiku went to court to challenge his suspension from the party, saying that the National Executive committee of the party has no power to suspend him and described the action as illegal, unconstitutional and null and void.
The court presided by Justice Oniyangi then restrained the defendants from sanctioning the plaintiff except in line with provision of the constitution of the party ratified on 10th December 2003.
He said that by the weight of evidence of the plaintiff deduced from the affidavit, he was persuaded to set aside the suspension on Atiku because it violated section 36 (1) of 1999 constitution and Article 16 of the party's constitution.
According to him, the plaintiff was not given a fair-hearing before the purported disciplinary measure was placed on him, saying the suspension was based on a pending action in court because the plaintiff claimed that he informed the party that he had challenged the allegation against him in court.
"NEC action was a rash and a breach of fair hearing, pre-emptory of the outcome of a suit pending against the plaintiff."
NEC, he said, only has power on expulsion and not suspension and he held that the suspension was not in order.
He admitted that NEC has a duty to discipline any erring member but such a person must first be referred to the disciplinary committee and that was the reason the NEC has no power to suspend for a length of time.
On the issue over which of the two constitutions to use by the party, the judge said that the plaintiff provided a weighty evidence to prove the efficacy of the one ratified 0n the 10th December 2003 and that the defendant failed to do it its affidavit.
Mere denial without supplying particular facts to controvert the plaintiff's averment in support of his position with respect to the constitution dislodged the defendant's claim.
The Court of Appeal which delivered judgment yesterday once refused an application for stay of proceeding brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to stop an Abuja high court sitting in Gwagwalada from further hearing the suit.
The court said granting such request would not serve the interest of justice in the matter as time was of essence in the case.
'This court has jurisdiction to preserve the res and it is clear that there is a more urgent reason to preserve the res in this case. Justice delayed is justice denied. The application for stay of proceedings is therefore refused and is accordingly dismissed," Justice Adekeye said in her ruling.