APC Crisis: The Anomalies of March 16 ‘Victory’

Spread the love
L-R, TINUBU, OSHIOMHOLE

The tirades of allegations of how Oshiomhole manipulated the 2019 All Progressives Congress, APC primaries for personal gain is principally at the centre of calls for his removal as the National Chairman of the party.

Despite attempt to give incoherent explanations to his accusers, a chieftain of the party former Imo State Governor, Mr. Rochas Okorocha was strident about his damming accusation that Oshiomhole collected money from him.

There are similar reports by other aspirants who were desperate to pick the ruling party’s ticket, but only Okorocha complained because Oshiomhole did not keep to the terms of their deal.

Chieftains of the party in Akwa Ibom, Bauchi, Rivers, Zamfara, and most recently Bayelsa States, had also been blamed their misfortunes on the National Chairman’s imposition of candidates for all cadres of the elections. These are some of the troubling reasons that gave rise to calls for his removal which eventually found supports from his local ward in Edo State.

Nigerians have also been inundated with reports of the tango between Oshiomhole and his successor, Mr. Godwin Obaseki in a war to control the APC structure in Edo State.

What followed is incessant court cases from all sides of the divides. They all points to a desire to remove as the National Chairman.

Finally, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Jabi, Abuja ordered an interim suspension of Adams Oshiomhole as the National Chairman of APC in a ruling on an application for interlocutory injunction by Justice Danlami Senchi.

Similar but belated rulings from a court of coordinate jurisdiction failed to save Oshiomhole, or so it seems now, and he quickly ran to the Bourdillon Man, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

According to a source, “Oshiomole became a convenient hangar for Tinubu’s message. He used Oshiomhole’s self-inflicted wounds to address his own issues and it was important he did to extricate himself from his long absences from important national concerns.”

Perhaps, this may have led to the flip-flop approach that characterised the decision of the Appeal Court yesterday, March 16, 2020.

A cross section of legal luminaries have compiled what they referred to as ‘Anomalies of a Judgement.’ They raised the underlisted Eleven fundamental points to justify their position that the lifting of the restraining order is a gift laced with COVID 2023 Symptoms.

  1. The case was adjourned sine die at about 12:30pm;
  2. Parties were later informed that the court will reconvene at 4pm;
  3. Counsel that was briefs by the acting National Secretary, Chief Victor Giadom was not informed of the fact that the Court will reconvene at 4pm until 3:50pm;
  4. By the time the 1st to 6th Respondents’ Counsel arrived in court, Oshiomhole’s Counsel was already on his feet and moving his motion.
  5. The Court gave Oshiomhole’s Counsel the go-ahead to move a motion ex parte when a counter affidavit and further counter affidavit had been filed in response to their motion on notice;
  6. The motion ex parte was not listed to be heard by the court that day otherwise why were the counsel on the other side invited to come to court;
  7. Oshiomhole’s Counsel misrepresented to the court that the party’s NEC will be held the next day and if the judgement of the lower court is not stayed, his a fait accompli would have been occasioned;
  8. The counsel to the 1st to 6th Respondents got up to inform the court that the NEC had been postponed and as such there was no need for an order of interim injunction to be granted;
  9. The Court went ahead and granted the Order so Oshiomhole will not be shut out of the NEC. Meeting which was to take place the following day (a complete ruse);
  10. The court when informed that there’s a Notice of Change or counsel and Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal on behalf of the 2nd Appellant in the file, said it’ll take a look at them when the hearing of the motion on notice comes up;
  11. The existence of the Notice of Change of Counsel and Notice of Withdrawal on behalf of the 1st Appellant meant that the appeal was not properly before the court and the motion should not have been heard until the issue of representation was resolved.

If the justification of these legal summary was in doubt, the closing remarks made by the Judge, that, politicians should learn to deal with their internal problems and the appeal that the judiciary should be left out of political manoeuvring, captured the mode of Oshiomhole and Tinubu’s Appeal Court verdict.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.