The embattled National Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Samuel Anyanwu, has asked the Supreme Court to review his sack from office by the Court of Appeal, insisting that the appellate court disregarded the party’s constitutional provision indicating that there was no vacancy in the office of National Secretary.
He also said that there was no evidence that the plaintiff was a member who paid his membership dues.
The Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu on Friday upheld a High Court ruling that sacked Anyanwu as the National Secretary of the PDP and equally upheld Ude Okoye as the substantive National Secretary of the main opposition party.
In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Ridwan Abdullahi, the Court described Anyanwu‘s claim to the PDP’s secretary position after he contested and emerged as PDP governorship candidate as a violation of the party’s constitution, adding that his appeal lacked merit.
The Appeal Court based its judgment because he did not resign from office when he contested for the Imo State governorship election in 2023.
But in his appeal to the Supreme Court, Anyanwu said that Emmanuel Aniagu who went to court had no locus standi as he did not follow all internal mechanisms as contained in the party’s constitution to resolve the dispute, insisting that the dispute was internal to the party.
He also urged the apex court to stay execution of the Appeal Court decision.
In a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, Anyanwu’s lawyer, Azeez Taiwo Hassan, said the national secretary is dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division in Appeal NO: CA/E/23/2024 between Senator Samuel Anyanwu V. Aniagu Emmanuel & Ors delivered by Justice Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi JCA and Hon. Justice Zainab Bage Abubakar, on December 20, 2024.
He said that the lower court erred in law when their lordships affirmed the decision of the trial court and held that the trial court had jurisdiction over, which subject matter deals with the intra-party and/or internal affairs of the 2nd respondent as a political party.
He also said that the plaintiff/respondent’s suit is a challenge to the rights, duties, functions, and powers of the third defendant/appellant as the National Secretary of the 2nd respondent.
Also, he said that leadership and membership of a political party is not justiciable and the court lacks the jurisdiction to either entertain or determine the same, and that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to have entertained the suit as constituted.
“The facts and circumstances of the cases/decisions of the appellate courts cited and relied upon by his lordship at the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeal are not on all fours with the case as constituted at the trial court and the lower court, therefore not applicable.”