BY IKECHUKWU NNOCHIRI

ABUJA — The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, Wednesday, refused to sack Governor Henry Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State from office over allegation that he emerged as the gubernatorial candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, via a kangaroo primary election.

A chieftain of the party who was equally an aspirant in the last governorship election in the state, Mr Austin Febo Ogionwo, had approached the high court praying it to void Governor Dickson’s election on the premise that the primary election that produced him was  not conducted in compliance with either the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, or the party’s electoral guidelines for primary elections.

According to the plaintiff, on November 14, 2011, national officers of the PDP arrived at the party’s secretariat in Yenagoa where he said they spent only 30 minutes and disappeared without conducting any special congress in the state for the purpose of selecting delegates to vote at the gubernatorial primary election.

He told the court that sequel to that action himself alongside all the other aspirants staged a protest that culminated to their unanimous decision to boycott the primary election  he said was stage managed to favour Dickson.

The plaintiff among other things, sought for “an order nullifying the primary election which purportedly held on November 19, 2011 for the purpose of selecting a gubernatorial candidate of the 1st Respondent (PDP) for the Governorship election scheduled to hold in February 2012 is null and void, the 1st Respondent having failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010.

“An order directing the 1st Respondent to organize a primary election for the purpose of electing its candidate for the Governorship election of Bayelsa State in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the 1st Respondent Electoral Guidelines and other enabling laws.”

Though he entered the suit on November 29, 2011, prior to the said election, however, the case was not concluded till yesterday.

Specifically, the plaintiff averred that shortly after the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, slated February to conduct gubernatorial election in the state, “the applicant being a leading member of the 1st Respondent in Bayelsa indicated interest and was cleared to contest the primary election to be conducted in order to select the candidate to be sponsored by the 1st Respondent.

“The 1st respondent is required to convey ward special congress for the purpose of electing delegates who will participate in the 1st  Respondent’s primary election in order to select the candidate to be sponsored by the 1st Respondent for the governorship election.

“Contrary to the requirements of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the 1st Respondent’s Constitution and its Electoral Guidelines, the 1st Respondent failed to convey any special ward congress in the whole of Bayelsa state for the purpose of selecting delegates who will participate in the gubernatorial primary election.

“Despite serious protest from the applicant and other aspirants, the 1st Respondent purportedly held a primary election and purportedly selected the 2nd Respondent as its gubernatorial aspirant for Bayelsa state for the election.”

However, both Dickson and the PDP, in separate preliminary objections, urged the high court to dismiss the suit for not only lacking in merit, but for also being grossly incompetent.

The Respondents further challenged the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the matter, adding that the plaintiff was bereft of the locus-standi to institute the action.

PDP told the court that the Supreme Court had affirmed and confirmed Dickson’s nomination and declared that the high court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matter where plaintiff did not partake in the disputed primary election.

“We submit and urge my Lord to hold that the plaintiff has no right to protect or litigate in this suit because the Supreme Court has severally decided that nomination and sponsorship of a candidate for election is a political matter within the discretion of the party,” PDP argued.

In his judgment, presiding Justice Adamu Bello, while dismissing the suit, upheld the arguments of the respondents, stressing that under section 87(9)  of the Electoral Act, as amended, the plaintiff lacked the locus to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in view of the fact that he did not partake in the said primary election which he brought the action to challenge.

The court further relied on the decided case in PDP v Sylva and held that the right to nominate or sponsor a candidate is a political matter within the sole discretion of the party.