APC Legal Adviser Recommends Lukman’s Expulsion From Party
The National Legal Adviser of the All Progressives Congress, Ahmad El-Marzuq, has recommended severe punishment including the option of expulsion to be meted out to the National Vice Chairman for North-West, Salihu Lukman, for taking the party and its leadership to court.
El-Marzuq’s suggestion was contained in a leaked ‘legal opinion’ written to the National Chairman of the party, Senator Abdullahi Adamu, dated April 28, 2023.
This was even as concerned members of the National Working Committee of the party set up a committee to look into the lingering feud between Adamu and the North-West vice chair with a view to resolving the internal wrangling rocking the party.
The development is coming barely four days after Adamu and the APC National Secretary, Senator Iyiola Omisore, were dragged to court by Lukman for breaching the party’s constitution.
In the suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja last Thursday through his counsel, Mohammed Abdullahi, APC was listed as the first defendant while Adamu, Omisore and the Independent National Electoral Commission were joined as second, third and fourth defendants respectively.
The face-off between the Kaduna politician and the APC national chairman has been a recurring case in the last year.
Aside from repeatedly accusing Adamu of running a one-man show, Lukman lamented that he has also reduced the NWC members to a mere rubber stamp to approve important decisions he singlehandedly take.
But the crisis took a different twist when a leaked memo, written by El-Marzuq, recommended that the high-ranking member of the NWC be kicked out of the secretariat for having the temerity to challenge the leadership of the party.
The APC legal adviser said that he had painstakingly gone through the reliefs sought and the affidavit in support of the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons and found no breach as alleged.
Among other things, El-Marzuq deemed issues bordering on the management of political parties and internal affairs of the party to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
He wrote, “It is a 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 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 organization 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 justifiable and no court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim on such dispute.’
“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.
“For ease of reference, Article 25.2 (i) is reproduced hereunder as follows: ‘The National Executive Committee shall meet every quarter and or at any time decided by the National Working Committee or at the request made in writing by one-third of the members of the National Executive Committee, provided that not less than 14 days notice is given for the meeting’.
“From the above, it is clear that the Party did not breach any provision of its Constitution by not calling for a meeting of NEC every quarter for the purpose of presenting activities of the Party to the members of NEC as alluded to by the Plaintiff and thus his suit ought to be dismissed by the Court for lacking in merit.
“The Plaintiff’s case revolves around the internal/domestic affairs of the Party which can only be resolved through the internal dispute resolution machinery of the Party. On this point see the Supreme Court case of OSAGIE & ORS vs ENOGHAMA & ORS (2022) LPELR – 58903.
“By resorting to a Court action against the Party, it is my recommendation that disciplinary measures in accordance with the Party’s Constitution should be meted out against the Plaintiff particularly Article 21.5 (v) which states thus: ‘Any member who files an action in Court of law against the Party or any of its officers on any matter or matters relating to the discharge of duties of the Party without first exhausting the avenues for redress provided for in this Constitution shall automatically stand expelled from the Party on filing such action and no appeal against expulsion as stipulated in this clause shall be entertained until the withdrawal of the action from Court by the member’.”
Lukman reacts
Following the new twist in the domestic affairs of the APC, political pundits have predicted that the disciplinary measure of the APC legal adviser would form the bulk of deliberations at Wednesday’s ‘expected stormy session’ of the NWC meeting.
When contacted for his reaction, the North-West vice chairman did not betray any emotion. He stated that he hopes the matter would be tabled at the next NWC meeting.
Lukman said, “My simple reaction is that I hope this will be tabled at the NWC meeting because it is only then it will become a threat.
