Court Declines To Hear Suit Challenging Dissolution Of APC NWC

A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined to resume hearing, during the current vacation, a suit challenging the dissolution of the Adams Oshiomhole-led National Working Committee (NWC) of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Justice Taiwo Taiwo held that the action did not qualify as an urgent matter, which a vacation court should hear.

The application was filed by an APC member in Abia State, Kalu Agu.

In the substantive suit, Agu is challenging the June 25, 2020 decision of the APC to sack the Oshiomhole-led NWC and appoint a Caretaker/Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee, led by Yobe State Governor Mai Mala Buni.

ALSO READ: Gov Zulum Wins 2019 Zik Prize For Leadership

The lawyer asked the court to, among others, declare the dissolution of the NWC, led by Oshiomhole, as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.

But when the matter came up last month, the APC argued in its counter-affidavit that the suit by Agu was designed to destabilise its current peace-building and reconciliation efforts.

The party contended that Buni and other members of the National Caretaker Committee were eminently qualified for their appointment.

It prayed the court to dismiss Agu’s suit.

In another application, the party, through its counsel, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), asked the court to reject a motion by Agu, seeking to hear the case during its current vacation and to abridge parties’ time to file their processes.

The party faulted Agu’s claim that the suit was pre-election in nature and ought to be determined within 180 days.

Fagbemi, who also represents members of the APC Caretaker Committee listed among the defendants, argued that the suit has no particular life span.

He added that the subject of the suit did not relate to any particular election.

Ruling on the matter on September 23, Justice Taiwo held that Agu’s application was without merit.

He said: “My critical examination and consideration of the Originating Summons together with the affidavit in support reveals to me that this matter is not a pre-election matter within the meaning of Section 285(14) and as decided by the superior court.

“Therefore, all I can just say is that the action of the plaintiff is not one that qualifies as a pre-election matter. I so hold. It, therefore, means that the Practice Direction Number 2 of 2020 is not applicable to this case not being a pre-election matter.