PDP National Legal Adviser, Adeyemi Ajibade, SAN, told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) shortly after Justice Donatus Okorowo of a Federal High Court, Abuja, adjourned the embattled lawmakers’ suit until January 24, 2024.
Ajibade said though President Bola Tinubu might have intervened in the dispute between the Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, the party stands on what the constitution says on defection.
“PDP as a party, we are standing on the side of the constitution of the country. It is not about issues of an agreement because by the constitution, we are all sworn to uphold.
“The governor himself swore to uphold the constitution, likewise the president. I am not against the president, calling for the resolution of the matter. He is the chief security officer of this country, and he has every right to intervene in the issue.
“But besides that, we, as a political party, the PDP own those seats and certainly we are interested in those seats. Whatever the governor is doing in this matter that concerns whether resolution on the issue, no resolution has been brought to Wadata Plaza on this matter.
“But as a political party, we cannot leave the seats and the votes willingly given to the party by the people of Rivers State,” he said.
According to the senior lawyer, aside from that, the constitution of the country is very clear; Section 109 (1g) is clear as to issues of detection.
He said the affected lawmakers had not denied that they had not been detected.
“Even if you pick the writ of summon that was filed before this court, they said they actually defected. “So they are only stating while they defected, that they have the right to defect based on the reasons given by them.
“So, it is not an issue as to whether there was a deflection or not, and we cannot fold our hands. We have to go to recover our seats,” he added.
Ajibade, who said they had challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit, said if the court ruled that it had jurisdiction, the PDP would appeal it.
“If at the end of the day, if this court decides to maintain and insists that it has jurisdiction, then we will do the needful. We will study the ruling and if possible, we have higher court,” he said.
On what transpired in court, he said though the case was adjourned for the hearing of the interlocutory injunction, the PDP filed an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
He added that though he opposed the plaintiffs’ application for the extension of the ex-parte order earlier granted by the court on December 15, he said it was unfortunate that other defendants who were supposed to take side with them did not oppose it, and the court granted the request.
“The court said based on the balance of probabilities, it decided to extend the order.
“The case has been adjourned to January 24, 2024, and on that day, our application challenging the jurisdiction of this court will be taken to see whether this court has jurisdiction on the matter.
“And we equally have an application, asking the court to set aside the earlier ex-parte order granted by the court for lack of jurisdiction,” he said.
