Court orders Lagos PDP to put congress on hold

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered that the congress of The Lagos State chapter of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) scheduled to hold tomorrow be put on hold.

Presiding Justice, Mohammed Liman’s order is sequel to a suit filed by some aggrieved members of the party who are dissatisfied with the conduct of the ward congresses held by the party across the local government areas in the state on the 3rd of March, 2012.

The plaintiffs in the suit are led by the PDP chairmanship candidate for Agege Local Government, Alhaji Imam Akorede. They are seeking the annulment of the local government congresses for noncompliance with the guidelines as stipulated by article 12 and 16 of the constitution of the PDP, 2009 as amended.

The defendants to the suit are Ambassador Musiliu Obanikoro, Mrs Dupe Sasore, Chief Ayo Waddel, Dr Lekan Sobowale, Prince Adegboyega Oyebola, Chief Lanre Osundairo, Engineer Tunji Amosu and Hon Wahab Wale Owokoniran.

They were all sued as members of the PDP Transition, Reconciliation and Congress Committee.

Other defendants are; Hon. Setonji Koshoedo (Chairman, Lagos PDP), Captain Tunji Shele(Secretary, Lagos PDP), Alhaji Abubakar Baraje (PDP National Chairman), Hon. Secondus (PDP National Organising Secretary), Prof. Attahiru Jega (INEC Chairman), the Lagos State INEC Commissioner, Lagos State Commissioner of Police and the Director of State Security Services.

The plaintiffs have equally asked the court for an order directing the National Executive Committee of the PDP to establish a caretaker committee to run the affairs of the Lagos state branch of the party pending the conduct of another congress in the state.

Justice Mohammed Liman while adjourning the matter to the 20th of March declared that in view of the fact that the “substractum” of the suit revolves around the conduct of the congress, it will be better to put the congress on hold so as not to defeat the intent of the suit.

He has also directed that necessary processes must be served on the defendants before the date when arguments on the motion for interlocutory injunction will be heard.