Listen to article
The crisis in the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) has taken a different twist after a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), restrained Chief Victor Oye from parading himself as National Chairman of the party.
Justice Mohammed Madugu sitting in Bwari Division of the court equally restrained Oye from organising any meetings or gatherings, be it NWC, NEC, etc Congresses or Convention in the name of APGA, pending the determination of a suit filed in respect of the party’s leadership crisis.
The Eastern Updates reports that injunctive orders were issued sequel to a motion on notice filed against Chief Victor Oye and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by Otunba Kamaru Ogidan (National Vice Chairman, South West Geopolitical Zone of APGA) and Alhaji Rabiu Mustapha (National Welfare Officer of APGA), two APGA National Working Committee members under the leadership of Chief Edozie Njoku.
The court also made an order stopping INEC from recognising Chief Victor Oye as National Chairman of APGA based on the Supreme Court Judgement of March 24, 2023.
Justice Madugu equally ordered parties in the suit to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the originating summon, warning parties not to indulge in activity that would over reach the court.
At a resumed hearing, yesterday, counsel to the plaintiffs, Michael Ajara, informed the court that the business of the day was for the court to hear his motion on notice, which he said was ripe for hearing.
He recalled that the court had on May 3, 2023 declined an ex parte motion brought by the plaintiffs, and instead ordered the applicants to put the respondents on notice.
But counsel to the respondents said he had filed a memorandum of conditional appearance and preliminary objection on May 9.
The respondents lawyer insisted that the option on notice was not ripe, and instead pleaded the court to proceed to hear the originating summon which he said, he had responded to.
However, Ajara told the court that the defence counsel submission was misleading and not true.
Consequently, Ajara asked the court to discountenance submission of defence counsel, while admitting that the preliminary objection is not ripe for hearing.
In the face of the argument by the two lawyers representing parties in the case, the court went on to rule on the submissions of counsel.
Justice Madugu noted that the court had asked the plaintiff to put the respondents on notice, but at the same time the respondents filed a preliminary objection.
The matter has been adjourned to May 17, for hearing of the preliminary objection.