The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Thursday extended the December 15 interim order stopping the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from taking any action step against the 26 Rivers House of Assembly members who defected to All Progressives Congress (APC).

Justice Donatus Okorowo extended the order following an application by counsel for the embattled lawmakers, Steve Adehi, SAN, and supported by Ken Njemanze, SAN, who appeared for the Rivers House of Assembly.

Although PDP’s lawyer, Adeyemi Ajibade, SAN, opposed the application, Justice Okorowo agreed that based on Order 26, Rule 10 of the FHC, the court had the discretionary power to grant the plea in the interest of justice.

The judge held that he was persuaded by the reasons given by Messrs Adehi and Njemanze that granting the order would be better in the interest of justice.

Mr Okorowo, who adjourned the matter until January 24 for hearing of the applications, said: “application for the extension of the order of the lifespan of the ex-parte order pending the hearing and determination of motion on notice is hereby granted.”

On December 15, the judge granted the ex-parte motion filed by the 26 lawmakers who dumped PDP for APC.

The court restrained INEC from conducting fresh elections to fill the seats of the 26 assembly members.

Upon resuming the hearing on Thursday, the plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that he had a motion on notice originally meant for a hearing today.

Mr Adehi, however, sought an adjournment in view of the fact that Lukman Fagbemi, SAN, had withdrawn his appearance and a new counsel had entered an appearance in the matter for the third defendant (assembly) and because the second defendant (PDP) had just served on them their response this morning.

Then Mr Njemanze told the court that he had the instruction of the third defendant (assembly) to take over the brief with the original letter of instruction backing this after the withdrawal of the earlier counsel, Mr Fagbemi.

He equally informed that a memorandum of appearance had already been filed.

A lawyer from Mr Fagbemi’s chamber confirmed that the learner silk had withdrawn from the suit.

The PDP’s lawyer, Adeyemi Ajibade, SAN, also the party’s national legal adviser, said he had an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to handle the suit and the competence of the suit itself.

He, therefore, prayed the court for an order discharging the December 15 interim order granted by the court.

Mr Ajibade said the plaintiffs had responded to their preliminary objection but had not responded to their second application, a motion seeking the court’s order to discharge the interim order.

He, however, aligned himself with the application for adjournment by Messrs Adehi and Njemanze, given Mr Fagbemi’s withdrawal from the suit.

He said this would also enable him to sort out their processes, which had earlier been served on Mr Fagbemi.

Mr Njemanze told the court that he was yet to be served with the processes filed by the PDP to enable them to respond to the same.

He said though there had been moves to resolve the dispute politically with the involvement of President Bola Tinubu, he would need to get the disposition of his client to the development.

“In the circumstance, we pray for an adjournment to enable me to file my processes,” he said.

The fourth defendant (clerk of the assembly)’s counsel, Ferdinand Orbih, SAN, notified the court that his client had not been served with any process.

Mr Orbih said he would consult with the fourth defendant to know which path to take.

He said if he agreed with the plaintiffs’ application, but the PDP insisted on going on with the matter, the case would still be alive before the court.

Mr Adehi prayed the court for an order extending the lifespan of the December 15 interim order pending when the matter is resolved.

But Mr Ajibade opposed Mr Adehi’s application, reminding the court of their motion to vacate the order.

He argued that issues had already been joined in the case by responding to the plaintiffs’ interlocutory injunction and that their counter affidavit had also been served.

Responding, Mr Njemanze, who appeared for the assembly, disagreed with Mr Ajibade.

“The issue of second defendant filing processes no longer arises at this stage because those processes are highly defective because we have not been served, and so, there cannot be issues at this stage,” he said.

He argued that it is the law that the issue of service is fundamental in adjudication and that without service, there cannot be adjudication on matters.

He, therefore, backed Mr Adehi’s application to extend the lifespan of the interim order.

Corroborating Mr Njemanze’s submission, Mr Adehi insisted that the circumstance leading to the grant of the ex-parte order had not changed.

Mr Adehi also argued that PDP was not ready for the sitting because it had just responded to their application at about 8:50 a.m. on Thursday.

He also argued that the first plaintiff (factional speaker) had complied with the court’s order to undertake damages of N250 million.

Mr Adehi said by Order 26, Rule 10 of the rule of the court, the court had the discretion to grant his plea, especially weighing all the circumstances and seeing that he was willing to go on with his motion, but for the development in the morning.

He urged the court to grant their request.

Responding to Mr Njemanze’s position that the PDP’s processes were incompetent, Mr Ajibade corrected that all their processes filed were competent, even though there had been a change of counsel.

INEC, IGP and SSS were not represented in court.

(NAN)