Court Sacks Lagos PDP Chairman Deji Doherty, Reinstates Dominic

Justice Oyekan Abdullahi of the Lagos High Court on Tuesday removed Dr Adedeji Doherty as the Chairman of the Lagos State chapter of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and reinstates former Chairman, Dr Dominic Adegbola.

Justice Abdullahi while delivering judgement in suit No: LD/3600/GCM/2019 DR DOMINIC ADEGBOLA & ORS. V. PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS. filed by Dominic Adegbola said the judgement was delivered in favour of the Claimants.

In the judgement, the Court said it considered the Preliminary Objection filed by the 1st -6th Defendants and dismissed them for lack of merit.

“Consequently, the Court considered the merit of the case canvassed by all the parties. The Court held that the positions sought to be filled at the special election were not vacant. Also, the Court held that the argument that the 1st Claimant, Dr. Dominic held the office of the State Chairman of PDP for 90 days has no place in the Constitution of PDP.

“The Court further held that the 1st Claimant was duly appointed to serve out the term of his predecessor who resigned .

The Court stated that the Claimant’s failure to utilize internal dispute mechanism is not accidental as the Defendants frustrated same. The Court relied on the attempt made by the 1st Claimant when he wrote a letter to the National Chairman of the party and the letter was rejected. This fact was not contradicted by the Defendants”.

The Court said it further held that “all the conditions precedent to conduct election into the party’s offices were not followed and that the NWC of the party had no power to conduct state and local government congresses. Also, the special congress must fail as there was no guideline from the NEC of the party.

“Furthermore, the Court held that no notice of the special congress was forwarded to INEC as required by the Electoral Act.

“In sum, the case of the Claimants succeeds completely. The special congress held on 13th November, 2019, was set aside and there were no vacancies in the first place.

“In addition, the Court further held that the Defendants’ act of conducting the special congress despite a subsisting order of the Court prohibiting same is contemptuous.