APC National Chair Suspension: Ganduje, Ward Executives Begin Legal Fireworks

The legal dispute surrounding the alleged suspension of the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, began on Tuesday, April 30th, as the Kano State High Court scheduled May 27 to address the preliminary objection, jurisdiction, and joinder applications,

Presided over by Justice Usman Na’Abba, the court initially upheld Ganduje’s suspension by the APC executive in Dawakin ward, Tofa Local Government Area of Kano State, on April 15, 2024.

Subsequently, on April 16, 2024, the court set April 30, 2024, as the date for the hearing and determination of the main case.

However, the judge later revoked the suspension order.

In the meantime, Ganduje obtained an ex parte order from Justice A. M. Liman of the Federal High Court in Kano on April 17, 2024. The order stipulated that the alleged suspension should not be enforced until the case was fully heard and decided.

During yesterday’s hearing, the applicants, Haladu Gwanjo and Laminu Borguma, the Legal Adviser and Assistant Secretary of the ward executive, respectively, acting on behalf of the nine ward executive members who suspended Ganduje, informed the court that they had submitted a motion ex parte with a 13-paragraph affidavit.

They sought an interim injunction against Ganduje’s suspension and were represented by their lawyer, Ibrahim Sa’ad.

During the court hearing on Tuesday, Sa’ad informed the judge that the respondent had served the counter-affidavit in court. As a result, he requested a postponement to allow them sufficient time to respond to the application.

M. M. Duru, the legal representative for the first, second, and third respondents, did not object to this request.

“We have filed and served all parties our motion, dated April 24, challenging the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this matter,” Duru said.

The counsel for the fourth respondent, Lydia Oyewo, who also did not object to the new date, told the court that her client was not served with the court processes.

She said: “We have not been served with the processes of the court. The plaintiff is in contempt of the court because they have failed to comply with the order of the court directing him to serve all the defendants in the matter.

“Particularly, we are appearing out of respect for the court. Our client has not been served, so we could not file any processes before the court.

“This matter is an intra-party matter and the court has held severally, even to the apex court. The court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine intra-party matters that have to do with leadership, membership and discipline of members.”

The individuals wishing to join the lawsuit, represented by their legal counsel, S.U. Jibril notified the court of their intention to become involved in the case.

After hearing from both attorneys, Justice Na’Abba scheduled May 27 for the parties to exchange documents and address the three applications.