The Supreme Court has explained why it affirmed former Kaduna State Governor, Ahmed Makarfi as the leader of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.
Recall that the apex court had on Wednesday sacked the National Chairman of the PDP, Ali Modu Sheriff while affirming Makarfi as the new leader of the party.
A three-member panel of the court presided by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen, sacked Sheriff, for demonstrating, “infantile desperation to lead the party.”
A member of the three-member panel, Rhodes Vivour, while reading out the judgment said Sheriff was not within the category of an “unimpeachable leader,” adding that his removal of the former governor was not necessarily expected to follow a vote of no confidence.
Vivour said there was no clause in the constitution of the party that made it mandatory for the former Borno State governor to be removed using a vote of no confidence.
The judge said, “He demonstrated an infantile desperation to lead the PDP by filing almost 10 different applications in various courts. They shall forever gather dust in judicial archives.”
Vivour cited relevant sections of the party’s constitution which made it imperative for members of the party to respect the proceedings of the PDP national convention.
He said, “The subject matter in the issue is Article 33; 35 and 47.
“There shall be a national convention. All members of the party shall be bound by the decisions of leaders from the National convention. Article 33 states the supremacy of the National convention.”
He said PDP constitution allows the deputy national leader of the party to stand in for his principal, adding that, “when Sheriff abandoned the national convention in May 2016, the party asked his deputy to stand in for him, making his attendance noted at the convention.”
Vivour held that although PDP’s constitution allows the party to remove the National leader after two years through a vote of no confidence, the word used to denote Vote of no confidence was ‘may’, which does not indicate compulsory adherence.
“May is not the same thing as shall,” therefore “a national officer could be removed without a vote of no confidence.
“There can be no doubt that the National convention has enormous powers over the party,” Vivour said.
