Ikenga Ideato Rep still PDP member, purported expulsion null, void – Court declares

A High Court sitting in Abuja has squashed the purported expulsion of the member representing Ideato North/South Federal Constituency of Imo State in the House of Representatives, Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere, from the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP). One Mrs Nancy Ijeoma (Claimant) had dragged Ikenga Imo and PDP, 1st and 2nd defendants respectively to the court seeking […]

A High Court sitting in Abuja has squashed the purported expulsion of the member representing Ideato North/South Federal Constituency of Imo State in the House of Representatives, Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere, from the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP).

One Mrs Nancy Ijeoma (Claimant) had dragged Ikenga Imo and PDP, 1st and 2nd defendants respectively to the court seeking amongst others the determination of whether having regard to the provisions of Section 59 (3) of the constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party (as amended in 2017) the purported disciplinary proceedings and expulsion of the 1st defendant, other than the National Executive Committee as a member of the 2nd Defendant’s Political Party is not ultra vires the powers of a Ward Executive Committee, Local Government Executive Committee, Zonal Executive Committee and/or state executive committee and unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

But in its ruling, the court presided over by Justice Njideka Nwosu- Iheme held that the Umuopia/Umukegwu Ward of the PDP, has no power to discipline the 1st defendant(Ikenga).

According to the certified true copy of the judgement; ” Section 59 (3) of the PDP constitution (as amended in 2017) states that; ‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution relating to discipline, no Executive Committee at any level except the National Executive Committee shall entertain any question of discipline as may relate or concern a member of the National Executive Committee, President, Vice President, Governors, Deputy Governors, Ministers, Ambassadors, Special Advisers or members of any of the legislative houses.”

“The golden rule of interpretation is that where the words used in a document are clear and unambiguous they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, unless to do so would lead to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of that document.

“In this instance, the words used in Section 59 (3) are very clear. It Is to the effect that it is the National Executive Committee of the 2nd defendant, to the TOTAL EXCLUSION of any other body that can entertain any question relating to the discipline of any party member holding the office of the President, Vice President, Governor, Deputy Governor, Minister, Ambassador, Special Adviser, member of any legisiative house.

“In the light of the above, it is crystal clear that the Umuopia/Umukegwu Ward of the PDP, having no power to discipline the 1st defendant, merely engaged in a fruitless exercise or what I would rightly describe as shadowboxing, in its enterprise which led to the making of Exhibit “C”. Little wonder, Exhibit “PDP 1st a press statement from the 2nd defendant denied the expulsion of the 1% defendant, thereby lending credence to the fact that on the face of Sections 57 (7) and 59 (3), of the 2 Defendant’s
Constitution, Exhibit “C” a Is worthless document, fit for no purpose.

“On the claimant’s prayer against the 2nd defendant, there is nothing placed before me to the effect that the 2nd defendant intends to expel the 1st defendant. In fact, the 2nd defendant has denied any such move. The 2nd defendant has equally, through Exhibit “PDP1” shown that it has no intention of expelling the 1st defendant.

“Rather, the 2nd defendant has shown through Exhibit PDP1, its strong resolve at ensuring the supremacy of the Party’s constitution. It is for this reason that I shall refuse to grant any injunctive order against the 2nd defendant, as prayed for by the claimant.

“Also, as I stated earlier in this judgment that the Umuopia/Umukegwu Ward has no power or authority whatsoever, to discipline the 1st defendant who is a member of the House of Representative by virtue of Sections 57 (7) and 59 (3) of the 2nd defendant’s constitution, granting an injunction against the Ward is neither here nor there.

“This is because the Umuopia/Umukegwu Ward of the PDP is bereft of any power to commence or sustain any disciplinary action against the 1st defendant. Therefore, granting an injunctive order against this Ward would seem to create the impression that it has the power to discipline the 1st defendant, ab initio. The Umuopia/Umukegwu Ward has no such powers in the first place, hence my refusal to grant this prayer of injunction against the
Ward.”