It is no longer news that Comrade Adam’s Aliyu Oshiomole the National Chairman of APC was removed from office today through an Interlocutory Injunction granted by an Abuja HighCourt and he is restrained from parading himself as the National Chairman of APC based on suspension from his Etsako ward in Edo State. I do not want to comment on the APC Constitution vis a vis discipline of a National Officer which is an issue before the Court as the matter is subjudice.
I have received a lot of calls and messages that I should volunteer my opinion with regards to this matter of Interlocutory injunction which purported to have removed Oshiomhole from office and I wish to succinctly do that as follows:
I have taken my time to look at the processes filed to achieve the removal and I have also seen a copy of the Notice of Appeal filed by Oshiomhole against the said ruling.
By nature of Interlocutory order, the purpose is to preserve the res i.e the subject matter of a case. In legal parlance it is said to the purpose for the granting of Interlocutory Injunction is to maintain status quo ante belum. This means injunction is meant to preserve the state of things as at when the matter was brought to court so as not to over reach the court and the other party.
In this case, when the matter was brought to court, Oshiomole was the Chairman of APC why its ward is claiming to have suspended him as a member. It means therefore that the purpose of any Interlocutory injunction should have been to preserve that state of affairs pending the determination of the main suit already pending in court.
In the case of Green v Green (1987)-LPELR (1338) SC, the Supreme Court talked about Purpose for the grant of an order of injunction in the following: “An order for an injunction cannot be made in vacuo. The aim of an order of injunction is usually to protect an established legal right. If the substantive right had not been established, as in this case, it will be, and it was, very wrong of the learned trial judge to grant the injunction sought against the defendant, Accessorium non ducit sed sequitur suum principale (the accessory right does not lead, but follows its principal).”Per OPUTA J.S.C. (P.7, paras. C-E)
I am also aware that it is an established principle of law that a court should not pronounce on live issues that will touch on the substantive issues in a case at Interlocutory level.
In this case, the aim of those who approached the court is to remove Oshiomhole from office at the end of the matter and it is part of their prayer before the court. It is therefore illegal for the court to have removed Oshiomhole at the Interlocutory stage in this case.
See the case of UBN PLC v ASTRA BUILDERS (WA) LTD (2010) LPELR- 3383 SC where the Supreme Court has the following to say on Whether Court can pronounce on substantive matters or issues in the course of interlocutory proceedings: “It should be noted that the appeal originates from the exercise of the discretion of the trial court either to grant or refuse the grant of the application in issue. It is equally important to note that the application being interlocutory the law is that the court should not decide the
Substantive matter at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings. “Per ONNOGHEN J.S.C. (P.35, paras. B-D).
In this case, the FCT High Court has decided the substantive case at the Interlocutory stage and this in my opinion is wrong and will not stand at the Court of Appeal.
I am aware that Oshiomhole has now appealed this interlocutory order at the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal. That is the right thing to do and haven done that, Oshiomhole can effectively resume his office any moment from now as if nothing happened, parade himself as National Chairman and carry on as the National Chairman and he will not be in contempt of court. This is because a party that has filed an Appeal against an Interlocutory order cannot be guilty of contempt of that order especially where it is obvious that the Court granted the order without jurisdiction like it obviously did in this case.
In the case of Group Danone & Anor vs Voltic Nigeria Ltd (2008) LPELR-1341 SC the court have this to say:
“Firstly it is settled principle of law that where a Defendant in a cause challenges the validity of an order directed against him either by way of an appeal or other application, he cannot be proceeded against for contempt of that order unless and until the issue of its legality is settle done way or the other.
“Now that Oshiomhole have challenged the order on Appeal, he can go back to his office without committing contempt of court.
Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that the FCT High Court with all due respect to My Lord has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter because the matter is an internal affairs of a political party and a court should not determine a political question according to Supreme Court.
Those who are happy that Oshiomole has been removed from office and are dancing Asonto and Shakushaku only have a temporary relief as Comrade Adams Oshiomole will be back earlier than expected in a more consolidated form as this action will certainly fail and will not achieve anything in the end.
Though it is a temporary setback for Comrade Adams Aliyu Oshiomole but he will certainly survive the onslaught! This process cannot remove him from office based on law except if there is anything behind and different from Legal process which I am not privy to but if it this one based on law, it will certainly fail and collapse! This is my humble opinion.
TOLU BABALEYE ESQ writes from Wuse Zone 5-Abuja.