The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawsuit seeking Dr. Iyorchia Ayu’s removal as the party’s national chairman was heard by the Benue State High Court in Makurdi on Friday. The court set May 26, 2023, as the date for its ruling.

Following the adoption of the parties’ procedures in the case, Justice Maurice Ikpambese, the chief judge of Benue State, adjourned the lawsuit for judgment.

Engr. Conrad Terhide Utaan, a PDP member in Benue State, took Dr. Ayu to court after his Igyorov Ward executive committee suspended him and voted against him. Yakubu Maikasuwa, SAN, the attorney for Dr. Ayu, raised preliminary objections when the case was called for hearing, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it involved a political party’s internal affairs.

Additionally, he argued that the plaintiff did not use the party’s domestic dispute resolution procedure to resolve the crisis. According to him, the plaintiff was not wronged, and the lawsuit will not provide the plaintiff with any benefits or utilitarian value.

Engr. Utaan’s attorney, Emmanual Ukala, (SAN), responded to the preliminary objections by arguing that the case is not a matter of party politics and citing a case that the courts have already decided. He referred to the decision of the Rivers State High Court in the case of five PDP members versus Uche Secondus, the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Oshiomhole v. Salihu in 2021, and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Gana v. SDP in 2019. 

He argued that when it comes to the interpretation of the constitution of a political party, the court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction. On the averment by Ayu’s counsel that the domestic dispute resolution mechanism of the PDP was not utilized by the plaintiff, Ukala SAN, submitted that the complaint is against Ayu, and as at the time the suit was instituted, Ayu was a sitting national chairman of the PDP.

He submitted that Ayu cannot be a judge in his own matter as doing so will be against the principle of fair hearing as contained in section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). On the averment that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to bring the application, Ukala argued that it is the case put forward by a plaintiff that determines his locus standi, and a look at the originating summons shows that the plaintiff has locus standi in the instant suit.

On the objection by Ayu’s counsel that the suit has no utilitarian value or benefit to the plaintiff, Ukala, SAN, told the court that the suit has utilitarian value and benefit to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is a member of the party, who also had an interest in the national chairman when it was zoned to a zone. Ukala, SAN, urged the court to dismiss all the preliminary objections to the originating summons.

While adopting the originating summons, the accompanying written address, and affidavit supporting the originating summons and exhibit, Ukala, SAN, averred that Ayu has not challenged his suspension by his ward executive in any court. After listening to counsels in the matter, the Presiding judge, Justice Maurice Ikpambese adjourned the matter to May 26, 2023, for judgment.