APC Legal Adviser Seeks Lukman’s Expulsion for Dragging Adamu to Court
*El-Marzuq’s letter remains a memo, not threat, says vice chair
Adedayo Akinwale in Abuja
The crisis rocking the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) assumed another dimension on Sunday as the National Legal Adviser, Ahmad El- Marzuq, has recommended the expulsion of the National Vice Chairman, Northwest, Dr. Salihu Lukman, in his letter to the National Chairman of the party, Senator Abdullahi Adamu.
But Lukman, in a swift reaction, said he hoped the issue would be tabled at the National Working Committee (NWC) meeting slated for Wednesday for deliberation, saying it was only then it would become a threat.
The party chieftain had given a seven-day ultimatum to Adamu to convene a meeting of the National Executive Committee (NEC) where Adamu would give the financial account of the party.
However, with Adamu’s failure to hearken to his call to convey the NEC meeting after expiration of the seven days ultimatum forced Lukman to institute a lawsuit against the chairman last Thursday.
But El-Marzuq in the letter dated 28th April, 2023 said for dragging Adamu and the National Secretary, Senator Iyiola Omisore, to court over their failure to convene meetings of the relevant party organs as mandated by the APC Constitution, Lukman, should be expelled.
He noted that he had painstakingly gone through the reliefs sought and the affidavit in support of the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons with a fine-tooth comb, saying in his opinion, the suit bordered mainly on the internal or domestic affairs of the party, which has been held in a plethora of decided cases to be non-justiciable.
El-Marzuq stressed that in the case of Waziri v. PDP & ANOR (2022) LPELR-58803(CA), it was held thus: “It is settled law that no Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints or matters pertaining to intra-party disputes of political parties. It has long been settled by the Supreme Court in Onuoha v. Okafor & Ors. (1983) 14 NSCLR 494 at 499 – 507 that, where the relief sought is on leadership of or intra-party dispute between members of the same political party or between a member or and the political party, only the party can resolve the dispute.
“This is because a political party is a voluntary organisation or association. Persons join political parties of their own choice, therefore, where there is any internal disagreement, it must be resolved by a majority decision of the members. That being so, any dispute over its internal affairs is not justiciable and no Court has jurisdiction to entertain any claim on such dispute.”
The National Legal Adviser, who cited several cases maintained that issues bordering on the management of political parties, has equally been held outside the jurisdiction of the Courts.
He said in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, Lukman noted that the NEC meeting ought to be held every quarter in accordance with the provisions of the party’s Constitution and that the failure to do so has greatly affected the smooth administration of the party.
“However, a cursory look at Article 25.2 (i) of the party’s constitution would reveal that it is not mandatory to convene a meeting of the National Executive Committee every quarter as postulated by the Plaintiff, rather, it is at the discretion of the National Working Committee or at the request in writing by one-third of the members of the National Executive Committee,” El-Marzuq explained.
Reacting, Lukman said as far as he was concerned, El-Marzuq’s memo remained an opinion and not a threat, stating, “My simple reaction is that I hope this will be tabled at the NWC meeting because it’s only then it will become a threat. For now, the memo is just an opinion of the National Legal Adviser, but I will react to it at the appropriate time.”
