BY IKECHUKWU NNOCHIRI
ABUJA—An Abuja High Court sitting at Maitama was yesterday asked to invoke its original jurisdiction and stop the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, from screening former Vice-President, Atiku Abubakar, for the impending general election.

Two aggrieved chieftains of the party and two-time gubernatorial aspirants in Adamawa and Taraba states respectively, Mr. Bala Takaya, and Senator Abdullahi Kirim, equally prayed the high court to make an order of interlocutory injunction restraining Atiku from contesting or presenting himself for screening or clearance to contest in the PDP presidential primary election to select the party’s candidate for the 2011 general election, pending the determination of the substantive suit before the court.

Listed in the suit were the PDP and Atiku as both the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively.

Specifically, the plaintiff’s applicants sought for “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its agents, privies, representatives or whosoever is acting through it or on its behalf, from screening or in whatever manner, clearing the 2nd defendant to contest in its presidential primaries in respect of the 2011 general elections, pending the determination of the suit before this court.”

Detailing the reasons  they had asked the court to restrain the PDP from screening Atiku, Senator Kirim, in a 32-point affidavit, in support of the motion on notice, averred that not only was the 2nd defendant indicted of money laundering in a report he said was released by the United States Homeland Security in February 2010, but that his activities while in power as vice president were trailed by allegations of corruption that he said prompted an investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

The plaintiffs insisted that a subsequent report released by the anti-graft agency on the matter found that the 2nd defendant engaged in gross misconduct, dishonesty, partisan infidelity and corrupt practices.

For instance, they averred that, “Between 1969 and 1989, the 2nd Defendant rose to become the Deputy Director of Customs, but was dismissed following the findings of a panel of inquiry that recommended his dismissal.

“That sometime in August 1991, the screening committee and state executive council of the Social Democratic Party, SDP, issued a report that found the 2nd Defendant guilty of massively printing the party membership cards without official authorization as required by the party constitution and guidelines.

“That sometime in February 2010, the United States of America Senate Permanent Sub-Committee on investigations/committee of Homeland security and government affairs carried out investigations on the money laundering and other corrupt practices of some foreign officials in the USA, in line with the strict moral code and integrity within which the country operates.

“That the said report which showed clearly that the 2nd Defendant was the source of over $40 million brought into the USA over a period of eight years (200-2008), through more than 30 accounts, and both questioned the nature and source of the 2nd Defendant’s wealth as well as found that the allegation by the SEC that Ms Jennifer Douglas Atiku received over $2m in bribe payments from Siemens AG, intended part for her husband cannot be dismissed.

“That in the course of the investigation by the USA Senate Committee, the 2nd Defendant was invited for questioning but he declined the invitation.

“That should the 2nd Defendant emerge as the presidential candidate of the 1st Defendant at the forthcoming general election, the 1st Defendants is likely to suffer the consequences as the 2nd Defendant is generally perceived as the epitome of corruption among the citizens of this great country and this may affect the electoral fortunes of the 1st Defendant at forthcoming general election.

“That should the 2nd Defendant be selected as the presidential flag bearer of the PDP, Nigeria may get a dose of the Noriega treatment in that the 2nd Defendant may be arrested by the US in connection with his alleged financial indiscretion or another candidate may fault the 2nd Defendant’s emergence based on his indictment by the US senate thus leaving the 1st Defendant without a candidate or at very least, one whose candidacy is tainted”. Meanwhile, Justice Ishaq Bello has fixed January 7 to hear the motion.