Federal High Court Sacks Anambra PDP Caretaker Committee

 

                 The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, yesterday, sacked the caretaker committee of the Anambra State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.

In a judgment that was delivered by Justice Evoh Chukwu, the high court equally restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from accepting the list of delegates or nominated candidates from the caretaker committee.

                    The voided caretaker committee led by Col. Augustine Akobundo was set up to run the affairs of the party in the state pending the 2015 general elections.

Specifically, Justice Chukwu held that the caretaker committee was set up in violation of a subsisting court order directing all parties should maintain status quo pending the determination of the suit.

He held that the action by the PDP in establishing the caretaker committee during the pendency of the suit and the subsistence of the court order was a bold display of impunity and constituted an affront on the court’s dignity and integrity. The judgment was in a suit marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/854/2014 filed by two PDP chiefs in Anambra State.

Cited as defendants in the suit which was filed by two plaintiffs, Ejike Oguebego and Chucks Okoye, were the PDP and INEC.

Meantime, the court, after dismissing PDP’s preliminary objection to the suit, said the party “has shown total disrespect to this court and this must not be allowed to stand to avoid creating a dangerous precedence.

“For the sanctity of the Judiciary, this brazen display of impunity or total disregard to the court must be stopped, at least, to serve as a deterrent to others.

“The law is that a party in disobedience to a court order should not come before the same court to seek any remedy. So, rather than dismiss the suit as an abuse of court’s process, the defences of the defendants, particularly the 1st defendant, must fail as it amounts to another abysmal display of contempt of court.

“They flouted this court’s order and still want a remedy from this court. The defendant, who is in contempt of court, cannot be seen to use the same court to advance its impunity”, the court added