Two separate suits was Tuesday struck out by Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The suits is challenging the dissolution of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and appointment of a National Caretaker Committee for the party
While the first suit was filed by a chieftain of the party, Hillard Eta, the second suit was instituted by a lawyer and former Youth leader of the party in Abia state, Kalu-Kalu Agu.
In the two suits, they specifically prayed the court to make a pronouncement on the legality or otherwise of the June 17, 2020, National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the APC which dissolved the NWC and appointed a National Caretaker Committee, led by Governor Mai-Mala Buni of Yobe State.
But in his judgment, Justice Taiwo Taiwo held that the two plaintiffs that filed the separate suits do not have the legal right (locus standi) to institute the legal action against the party.
Ruling on the preliminary objections filed by the defendants, who are Buni led Caretaker Committee members, the court held that the plaintiffs did not show nor prove how the dissolution of the NWC on June 17, 2020, by 16 out of 20 members of APC NEC infracted on their civil rights and obligation more than any other member of the party.
“There must be a nexus between a plaintiff and the cause of action”, the court held and noted that the plaintiffs did not follow condition precedents of exhausting the internal mechanism for resolving issues before filing the legal action.
The court found out also that for the APC to be a plaintiff in the suit, there must be an existence of a faction and, “In the affidavit deposed to by the 2nd plaintiff, there was nowhere he claimed to belong to a faction.”
Consequently, the judge struck out the name of APC as a party in the suit and held that the issues raised in the suits of the plaintiffs are internal affairs of the party and are, therefore, not justifiable.
After ruling on issues raised by the defendants in their preliminary objections, the court subsequently struck out the case, affirming that it would be a waste of time to look into the substantive matter.
