According to reports on the Daily Independent, five members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) under the auspices of New Lagos Movement have sued National Leader of the party, Bola Tinubu, and the Acting National Chairman, Bisi Akande, over alleged imposition of party officers at the recent congresses of the party in Lagos State.
The plaintiffs, in the suit before the Federal High Court in Lagos, are seeking an order restraining the defendants from allowing any delegate as may be presented by the Lagos State chapter of APC to participate at the National Convention of the party scheduled to hold between June 13 and 14 or at any other time.
The plaintiffs – Akinniyi Akinsiju, Michael Popoola Ajayi, Olugbenga Fakoya, Toyin Raheem and Taiwo Sanyaolu –filed the suit through their lawyer, Nurudeen Ogbara.
They are seeking judicial intervention over the alleged imposition of party officers.
Apart from Tinubu and Akande, others joined as defendants in the suit are Chairman of APC Congress Committee, Garba Abari, the APC itself and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Abari’s committee supervised APC congresses which were designed to produce leaders of the party in Lagos State.
One of the plaintiffs, Taiwo Sanyaolu, in an affidavit in support of the suit, recalled that all the plaintiffs specifically formed a nucleus group within APC known as ‘New Lagos Movement’ in order to install internal democracy within the party.
He averred that one of the constitutional provisions of APC’s constitution was that all party posts “shall be filled by democratically conducted elections in order to avoid imposition which could breed discontent and crisis”.
Sanyaolu further recalled that it was against the background of the above that APC members in Lagos State at a stakeholders meeting decided that persons to hold the party offices must emerge at congresses to be held from April 5 and rejected the idea of imposition of leaders by Tinubu.
He added that the ward congresses held on April 5 as scheduled, where members trooped out in large numbers and queued behind their favourite candidates at the end of which electoral results, were announced in most centres to the hearing of everybody.
He further said, as scheduled, on April 12, the local government congresses of the party in Lagos State held at the various local government secretariats where delegates who emerged from the Ward Congresses of April 5 cast their votes for their preferred candidates in order to produce party executives at the local government level.
Sanyaolu added: “It was rather surprising to everybody when, after the conclusion of voting in many centres, the 1st defendant (Tinubu) unilaterally and unconscionably altered the results of many local government areas and started allocating already voted offices to his preferred elements who lost at the elections and thereby declaring persons who lost on the fields to be the winners of the elections.
“Such disastrous havocs were wrought on the electorate in Surulere Local Government where the 1st defendant, in connivance with one Femi Gbajabiamila, a member representing the 4th Defendant (APC) at the House of Representatives, declared false results and awarded offices to their stooges.
“Similarly in Ikorodu North Local Council Development Area of Lagos State, false results were declared and endorsed by the 1st defendant who unilaterally imposed his cronies on the electorate within the party.
“In several other local government areas of the State of Lagos, including but not limited to Somolu, Agboyi-Ketu, Mushin, Ikeja and Ojodu Local Government Areas, the 1st defendant, using the agency of the 2nd defendant (Abari), manipulated election results to favour his cronies and in some places where elections did not hold due to violence, the 1st defendant unilaterally declared a number of persons favoured by him to be party executives.
“Furthermore, I was present on the 16th day of April, 2014, at a gathering of party members at the Lagos State party secretariat of the 4th defendant situate along Acme Road, Ogba, Ikeja, Lagos State, where the 1st defendant unilaterally announced that he had zoned the 4th defendant’s governorship ticket in Lagos State to Lagos East comprising Ikorodu and Epe areas of Lagos State without any prior consultation with or room for debate by members of the party.
“The 1st defendant, at the same venue as in the immediate paragraph above and well before the then on-coming Lagos State Congress which was to hold on the 26th day of April, 2014, declared that he had zoned party offices by allocating 30 per cent to youths, 30 per cent to women and 40 per cent to the elders and further that he had zoned party offices to various parts of the State via a process not permitting popular democracy,” the plaintiff averred.
He added: “Incidentally and proving the above, as a bona fide member of the 4th defendant, I sought to contest the office of State Youth Leader of the party and applied to obtain nomination form and was at the office of the 4th defendant in Ikeja, Lagos, for several hours on the 16th and the 17th days of April, 2014.
“After persisting in my efforts to obtain a nomination form, one Funsho Ologunde, a member of the Congress Committee headed by the 2nd defendant, took pity on me and explained to me that all offices of the party had been zoned to various local governments and particularly, the office of Youth Leader of the party had been zoned to a local government area other than my place of residence and hence I could not obtain any such form.”
The deponent further alleged that a letter sent by the plaintiffs to Akande on the anomalies was ignored, and that nothing was heard on it till date.
He also indicted INEC officials of failing to stop the electoral anomalies.
He said it is necessary for the court to intervene in the matter otherwise the plaintiffs would have suffered irremediable loss by being represented by unqualified persons at the National Convention of the APC.
While stating that it was is in the interest of justice that the application in the suit be urgently heard and granted, Sanyaolu lamented that any further delay would greatly prejudice him and other plaintiffs in the suit.
The plaintiffs, however, pledged to pay damages to the defendants where the court finds out that the application ought not to have been granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment