Gulak Lied about Court Ruling – PDP

0
3
Alhaji Ali Gulak

– 

THE Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, has dismissed the idea that the court of appeal has declared Ali Gulak, the national chairman of PDP. A statement issued by the PDP and signed by its counsel, Emeka Etiaba, SAN, said that the lower court only said that somebody from the North East should be appointed as the chairman of the part.

“My attention has been drawn to claims made by Alhaji Ali Gulak who is the Respondent in Appeal No. CA/A/24/2016 filed by the Peoples Democratic Party and Chief Uche Secondus.

“In the Appeal, the Appellants seek the setting aside of the Ruling of the FCT High Court in Suit No. CV/153/15 and invariably the Judgment of the same Court based on lack of jurisdiction.

“Contrary to the insinuations made to the effect that no Stay of Execution is pending at the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal on Monday, 22/2/2016 will hear the Application for Stay of Execution in Motion No. CA/A/24/MI/2016. This Motion came up on 11/02/2016 whereupon the Court ordered Parties to file Written Addresses.

“I seize this opportunity to debunk the lie that the Judgment of the lower Court by any stretch of imagination declared Alhaji Ali Gulak the National Chairman of the Party” Etiaba said.

He said: “the Court only ordered that a member of the Party from the North East including Alhaji Gulak be appointed National Chairman to complete the tenure of former National Chairman, Alhaji Muazu who resigned. This appointment was to be made by the Party’s NEC and NEC went ahead to elect Senator Ali Modu Sheriff and not Alhaji Gulak”.

On the argument that Uche Secondus, who as the deputy national chairman cannot preside over the NEC meeting that elected Senator Ali Modu Sheriff by virtue of the Judgment of the FCT High Court, he stated that “it is an issue only a Court of competent jurisdiction can resolve and we await Alhaji Gulak Court processes.”

He said because of the Appeal pending at the Court of Appeal, he would not comment further as I may inadvertently be discussing matters that are subjudice.

—  Feb 18, 2016 @ 17:15 GMT

|

(Visited 5 times, 1 visits today)
Click Banner for Details
Loading...