Court dismisses suits over Kogi APC leadership dispute, choice of primary

A Federal High Court in Abuja in Abuja has dismissed two suits filed by some members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Kogi State in relation to the disputes over the party’s leadership and its choice of mode of primary to be adopted for selecting candidate for the forthcoming governorship election.

In two judgments on Monday, Justice Taiwo Taiwo dismissed both suits marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2018 and FHC/ABJ/CS/833/2019.

The first suit, filed by Haddy Augu Ametuo and another, prayed the court to determine the true leaders of the party from the two sets of members of the party in the state, claiming entitlement to its leadership.

The second, filed by Destiny Eneojoh Aromeh, Isah Abubakar, Noah Aku and Mrs. Joy Onu, queried the decision of the APC’s National Working Committee (NWC) to adopt indirect primary in choosing the party’s candidate for the forthcoming governorship election.

The plaintiffs were of the view that the choice of the mode to be adopted for the primary could not be determine while the leadership question in the state chapter of the party was yet unresolved, with the pendency of the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/ 581/2018.

Justice Taiwo, in the first judgment, dismissed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/ 581/2018 for being statute barred on the grounds that it was not heard within the 180 days stipulated under Section 285(10) of the Constitution.

The judge upheld the preliminary objection filed against the suit, agreed with the defendants that it was a pre-election case and held that the suit is caught by the statute of limitation as contained in Section 285(10) of the Constitution.

He noted that, as at the August 15, 2019, when the suit was heard, it was over 400 days, since the suit was filed.

Justice Taiwo noted that the issue in this matter has to do with the question regarding who is the authentic EXCO of the 1st defendant (APC) in Kogi State.

He added that it may appear not to be a pre-election matter, in that it has to do with the election of the Executive Committee (EXCO) of the 1st defendant in Kogi State and not election into elective offices.

The judge, however, held that by the Supreme Court decision in the case of APC v. Umar, the process or exercise embarked upon by a political party, such as congresses, nomination exercise, etc, are all pre-election matters or exercises.

He added “I am bound by this decision and I cannot decide otherwise. There is no doubt that this suit was filed more than 400 days ago.

“The court ought to have decided this matter within 180 days. However, this is not the case. I find and hold that this court will be in contravention of Section 285(10), 4th Alteration No 21 Act, if it goes beyond this premise in this matter.

“Anything done thereafter, aside deciding the objection of the 3rd defendant will become a mere academic exercise and a waste of judicial time,” Justice Taiwo said.

In the second judgment on the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/833/2019, Justice Taiwo held since this suit was predicated on the first suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/ 581/2018), which had been dismissed, it was unnecessary determining issues raised in the suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/833/2018 on the grounds that they have become academic.

The judge noted that the totality of the complaint of the plaintiffs was that the first defendant in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/ 581/2018, who is the defendant in this suit: FHC/ABJ/CS/833/2019 (APC), through its National Working Committee (NWC), ought to wait until the decision of the court in the first suit before adopting the indirect primary mode for nominating its governorship candidate in the forthcoming election.

He further noted that the suit numbered: FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2018 was instituted by the plaintiffs, who claimed that they are the authentic Kogi State Executive Committee of the defendant (APC).

The judge stated “I do not intend to waste judicial time which is precious in times like this, in going into the merit of this case in view of the judgment of the court in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2018, read a few minutes ago, in dismissing this suit for being statute barred, pursuant to Section 285(10) of the 4th Alteration, No: 21 Act of 2017.

“It would be pointless to proceed in considering the propriety or not of this as canvassed by the parties. Through their counsel, in view of the judgment of the court just referred to above.

*Courts have been enjoined not to spend precious judicial time on issues that are academic. Courts are to determine life issues and issues that will meet the end of justice.

*The courts, not being academic institutions, do not brook academic disputes. No court wastes its precious time on causes, the determination of which bears no consequence on the dispute between the parties.

“Acting in vein never forms part of the court’s functions. This suit has become academic, in that its resolution has become unnecessary in view of my judgement in suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/581/2018.

“To answer the issues canvassed will bear no consequence on the dispute between the parties in this suit.

“The entire suit is spent and it is of no beneficial value. I therefore have no choice than to dismiss this suit in its entirety,” the judge said.