Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order preventing the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) governors, its National Working Committee (NWC), and Board of Trustees (BoT) from interfering with or dissolving the party’s Executive Committees in Rivers State.
The court also barred them from establishing any interim committees to replace the pro-Wike party officers at the state, local government, and ward levels in Rivers State.
Justice Lifu’s ruling came in response to an ex-parte application filed by the Rivers State PDP Executive Committee, led by Aaron Chukwuemeka, along with their counterparts at the local government and ward levels.
The judge further ordered the PDP’s national leadership and others not to interfere with the local government and ward leadership in Rivers State, which was elected alongside the State Executive Committee earlier this year during various party congresses.
According to an enrolled order, the court emphasized that the tenure of the Rivers PDP executive committees at the state, local government, and ward levels must not be disrupted by the defendants.
Additionally, the court ordered the defendants not to allow any other group to perform the functions of the PDP executives elected between July 27 and August 31, 2024.
Represented by their counsel, Joshua Musa, the plaintiffs argued that the defendants were attempting to dissolve the legally elected executive committees in Rivers State and replace them with interim committees.
The plaintiffs further claimed that without the court’s intervention, they would face injustice and suffer significant losses.
After reviewing the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Justice Lifu also restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or accepting any persons or groups other than those elected in the state, local government, and ward elections of the PDP in Rivers State.
The judge, however, directed the plaintiffs to file a fresh undertaking to compensate the defendants in case it is later found that the restraining orders should not have been granted.
The hearing for the motion on notice filed by the plaintiffs against the nine defendants is set for October 4, 2024.