Edit Content
Tuesday, Nov 5, 2024
Edit Content
Reading: Secondus and Two Other Key Supporters of Gov Fubara Denied Access to PDP Meetings
- Advertisement -

Secondus and Two Other Key Supporters of Gov Fubara Denied Access to PDP Meetings

Ehabahe Lawani
Ehabahe Lawani 15 Views

The applications made by Uche Secondus, Celestine Omehia, Austin Opara, and Siminalayi Fubara to set aside the order that prevented them from attending PDP meetings were dismissed by the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The order also affected sacked Governor of Rivers, Celestine Omehia, and former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Austin Opara.

The court ruled that their motions for a stay of execution were incorrectly filed and therefore incompetent.

The judge had previously issued restraining orders on April 5, preventing the three PDP chieftains from participating in any meetings of the National Executive Committee and/or Board of Trustees of the party until the substantive suit is heard and determined.

These orders were made in response to three separate suits filed against the PDP chieftains by members of the party in Rivers State.

Secondus, Omehia, and Opara had requested that the enforcement of the orders be halted until the appeals they lodged were decided, contesting the ex-parte orders.

In three separate judgments on Thursday, Justice Ekwo deemed the applications inadequate.

He explained that according to Order 26(9)(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (FHCCPR) 2019, Secondus, Omehia, and Opara should have sought to modify or lift the orders by applying to the court rather than requesting a stay. 

Justice Ekwo emphasized that there is no provision for appealing against an ex-parte order of the Federal High Court, and any person affected by such an order should refer to Order 26(9)(1) of the FHCCPR 2019 for guidance.

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

He concluded that the applications were baseless and constituted an abuse of the court process, leading to their dismissal. 

Justice Ekwo also highlighted that the court had clearly outlined the repercussions of such actions.

The judge then scheduled a hearing for April 25 to address pending motions for interim injunctions filed by the plaintiffs in the three cases.

Share This Article
- Advertisement -