Plateau Labour Party Crisis: Amb. Margif Appeals Judgment  Of Lower Court

Yakubu Busari

The Labour Party (LP) crisis deepened, as Amb Yohanna Yilpwan Margif appealed the lower court judgment of Honourable Justice Dorcas Agishi which she delivered on the 9th day of December 2022.

The Labour Party governorship tussled Amb.Yohanna Yilpwan Margif said the outcome in Plateau State against, Dr Patrick Dakum was he was not an aspirant but the authentic candidate who was illegally substituted by the party.

According to him , he appealed against the judgment of a Federal  High Court that struck out a suit he filed seeking the dissolution of the state congress of LP   held on the 5th day of  August 2022.

Our medium recalls that Amb.Yohanna Margif approached the lower court over his substitution by the National Secretariat of Labour Party to replace him with Dr. Patrick Dakum who didn’t participate in LP primary and was quoted to have said that his nomination and expression of interest forms were purchased by the state exco.

In the suit, the governorship aspirant had asked the court to dissolve the entire state executives on the ground of being biased.

He also urged the court to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the exco from conducting the ward and state congress.

In his judgment, Justice D.V Agishi dismissed the suit filed by Amb Yohanna Yilpwan Margif  on lack of jurisdiction.

Amb.Margif Yilpwan in his notice of appeal claimed that the judge “was in grave error when he held that he was expelled from the ward in Bokkos LGA and another primary was conducted on the 5th day of August ,2022 without section 84 of the electoral act ,2022.

“That the trial judge erred in law when he held that the proper parties who would be affected by the decision of the court were not before the court, and as such the court is robbed of jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the same, denying the appellant fair hearing and thereby occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice.”

He also claimed to have written the National Working Committee (NWC) of the party, seeking the dissolution of the state executive over alleged violation of their oath of office.

Margif accused the state exco of the party of being biased and compromising the process of the forthcoming governorship primary election of the party.

The counsel to Amb.Yohanna Margif ,Barr .M.B Abdullahi has filed six grounds to challenge the judgment against with the weight of evidence and three (3) reliefs sought from the court of appeal.

1 An order of the court of appeal, allowing the appeal.

11 An order setting aside the decision of the learned trial judge in a suit NO, FHC/J/CS /76/2022  .Amb Yohanna Yilpwan Margif Vs Labour Party (LP) & 2ors , striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction .

iii An order granting all the reliefs contained in the originating summon sought for the plaintiff in suit NO,FHC /J/CS/76/2022 Amb Yohanna Yilpwan Margif Vs Labour Party (LP) & 2ors ,the Plaintiff having proved his case before the trial court to be titled to the reliefs sought, pursuant to section 15 of  court of appeal act .

Five ground, the learned trial judge erred in law when held this knowledge of ,”Here the plaintiff stated his complaint that the congress that took place on the 5th August ,2022 for substituting him.

According to Barr. Abdullahi , his client he didn’t participate and was not an aspirant either . The Law is trite that for a person to challenge the outcome of a Congress of a party . He must be an aspirant /candidate in an election.

It is to be noted that what gives a party the right to challenge or that takes away the nomination of a candidate out of the internal affairs of a party is the participation of individuals as an aspirant in the election and thereby occasioning a miscarriage of Justice.

Particular Errors

Abdullahi says , political parties are bound by law to conduct valid congresses or primaries in compliance with provisions 82 and 84 of the electoral act 2022.

The purported primary election upon by the lower court and the 1st and 2nd defendant contravened the provision of the electoral act ,2022 as the same was not monitored by the 3rd defendant,INEC