IWOK & OTHERS vs PDP: Raji floors Usoro and Nwoko in court

Counsel to Iwok & others vs PDP, Mr. Ahmed Raji, SAN yesterday June 14, 2022, floored Paul Usoro, SAN, and Uwemedimo Nwoko, SAN counsels to PDP and 331 delegates, respectively in court.

After unsettling their arguments for over five hours, Usoro had to apologise to Raji at some point, after he tried desperately to confuse the court away from the main issue.

The parties had engaged in hit arguments to convince the court over four applications viz: stay of execution of the status quo ante Bellum order; setting aside of motion; preliminary objection to the originating summons and the substantive suit.

Paul Usoro, SAN, representing the PDP reverted on their earlier motion on notice filed on May 19, 2022, to plead with the court to stay execution of status quo ante bellum.

Tendering three exhibits, he said the most “critical one” was the notice of appeal against the status quo ante bellum order. He subsequently adopted his written address in support of the motion.

In response, Ahmed Raji, SAN representing the plaintiffs, adopting a 15-paragraph counter-affidavit, urged the court to dismiss the motion for lack of merit.

Raji further argued that for the sanctity of the court to be maintained, the status quo ante bellum order must attract consequences.

No court, he argued, makes an order (status quo ante bellum) for the fun of it, adding that the opponents’ motion to stay the execution of the order showed that the order had meaning and so should not have been disobeyed.

Raji further argued that when an order is made, there must be consequences, otherwise people can do whatever they like. Even if the court does not have jurisdiction, he insisted, it does not mean the order should not be obeyed.

On the claim that forms were bought in bulk, hence the plaintiffs have no locus, according to Uwemedimo Nwoko, SAN who represented the 331 delegates, Raji, countered that Nwoko did not provide any legal authority to show that buying form for someone was illegal.

He said the party (PDP) which sold the forms did not complain, so why should the other contestants? No law says forms can’t be bought for someone, he insisted, urging the court to discountenance such claims.

In addition, he insisted that it was not correct that the plaintiffs lacked locus, and went ahead to tender the duly filled forms which had individual plaintiffs’ names.

Correcting a misconception, Raji argued that the main issue before the court was on the process of producing a list of proper delegates and not on who won primaries.

Usoro, citing copious legal authorities, had struggled to prove that the plaintiffs did not contest the primaries. He also argued that the primary was duty conducted by the wards and not the state.

However, Raji said the issue before the court was whether the purported screening of those aspiring to be delegates was covered under PDP guidelines or the constitution.

Still, on the substantive case, Raji argued that contrary to a letter issued by the state party PRO, Borono Bassey, that a list of cleared aspirants have been sent to local governments, there was no provision anywhere for screening or clearing of those to contest for Adhoc delegate election.

He accused Nwoko and Usoro of dancing around the substantive issue, which was introducing a new rule in the middle of the game by talking about clearing those to stand for the Adhoc election.

Against Nwoko, Raji urged the court to grant all the prayers of the plaintiffs. Describing some of Nwoko’s filings, which ought to have sought leave of the court as wanton abuse of court processes, and urged the court to discountenance them.

Raji then countered Paul Usoro that the issue was an internal matter of the party and went ahead to cite authorities to affirm that since the party had breached its own guideline and rule, the court was duly empowered by law to intervene.

The judge later adjourned the case to July 15, 2022, for the ruling.