As the members of the public are torn on the ruling of Federal High Court, Abuja over the election of Ward Ad-hoc delegates by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Akwa Ibom State, lawyers have offered hope on the legal status.
Since the court ruling, many have been thrown into confusion while others have wallowed in ignorance on the real meaning of the legal dictum- Status Quo Ante Bellum.
In a Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/606/2022, Rt. Hon. Friday Iwok & 30 Ors V. INEC & Anor challenged the outcome of the Ad-hoc Delegates Congress at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
They sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the PDP from accepting or using the said elected Ad-hoc Delegates for the purpose of the Governorship Primaries.
Read also: Akwa Ibom PDP Chief Killed by suspected abductors
Justice Egwuatu declined the plea and rather ruled that the parties be served when it first came up for hearing on Friday, May 13, 2022.
When the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday, May 1 on, Ahmed Raji, SAN, who represented the Plaintiffs while PDP and the 987 ad-hoc delegates were represented by Paul Usoro, SAN and Uwemedimo Nwoko, SAN.
While Barr. Usoro filed a Counter Affidavit opposing the originating summons and counter affidavit opposing the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction, former Akwa Ibom State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Nwoko, SAN filed a motion for rejoinder of the 987 Ad-hoc delegates who were not listed by the plaintiff’s in the originating suit.
In its ruling, the Court directed that the Status Quo Ante Bellum be maintained and adjourned hearing of the case to May 25.
But in a radio interview on Thursday morning, Inibehe Effiong, a Lagos-based legal practitioner, argued that based on the court order, the judge wanted the matter was before the matter was brought to court to be maintained.
Speaking in Planet FM, Uyo under Peoples Parliament, Effiong said it was not Status Quo Post Bellum, so the lawyers know the meaning and should not confuse and be mischievous to lay people.
On the interpretation given by the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, the fiery legal practitioner condemned him for descending into partisan politics.
”He should not give his opinion on the matter. His position on the legal matter is wrong and is flawed.’’
He advised PDP to be circumspect not to conduct any primaries not to allow the matter to remain pending when the substantive suit is determined.
The human rights warned PDP against the preference of Zamfara case or Rivers State case which could be disastrous to the party and to avoid committing contempt of court.
Uduak S. Etuk, another lawyer wrote ‘”Make no mistake, there’s a thin but bold line between an Order of Court maintaining the “Status Quo” and an Order of Court maintaining the “Status Quo Ante Bellum”
”I don’t know what the Court Ordered because I am yet to sight a copy of the Court’s Order.
It is my take that maintaining Status Quo implies leaving things the way they are as at the time of the ruling being delivered.
Whereas maintaining the Status Quo Ante Bellum implies leaving things to be the way they were before the reason for approaching the Court.
”In the instant case, if the Court ordered that the Status Quo be maintained, it means that the ad hoc delegates are not to be refrained from exercising their powers to participate in the Primaries.
”However, if the Court ordered that the Status Quo Ante Bellum be maintained, it simply means that the ad hoc delegates cannot participate in the Primaries because the situation before the reason for approaching the Court was a situation where the ad hoc delegates never existed.’’
Bassey Etim, an-Uyo-based Legal Practitioner explained ‘’It is without doubt that the court ruled that the “status quo” remains until the hearing of the substantive suit on Wed. 25 May, 2022.
According to him, ”The full legal maxim (Latin phrase) is – Status quo ante bellum. Meaning – “the situation as it existed before the war”.
The simple legal interpretation to My Lord’s ruling is to the effect that;
‘The position wherein Parties to the suit were, before the conduct which gave rise to the Cause of Action pending before the Court must be sustained.’ – Status quo.
Now, what was the position of Parties before the ‘action’ that gave rise to the Cause of Action? Simple – Parties were in a position where there existed no Ad-hoc delegates.
He noted ”TAKE NOTICE that the matter is adjourned for the Hearing and Determination of the Substantive Suit.
”The crux of the issue in the Substantive Suit, which has given rise to, or is the Cause of Action, is – on the determination;
(1) Whether there was conduct of Ad-hoc delegate elections in the 329 wards in Akwa Ibom State?
(2) Granted though not conceding that it was done, whether same was properly so done and or conducted?”
Hear him, ”The above issues are what the Court shall seek to determine in the substantive suit, which is the contention of the Parties to the suit. In law, at this stage Parties are deemed to have joined issues, or simply put, to have locked their horns.
”Therefore, it would be legally erroneous to hold that, the Court have asked that the Ad-hoc delegate list (or whatever so called) be sustained. If this were to be so, then what would the Court determine in the Substantive Suit that is adjourned to Wed 25 May, 2022?
”What the Court therefore meant by “status quo” is that, before the advent of the said Ad-hoc delegates, there existed no quarrel and there was no contention as to the legitimacy or legality of the status of the ‘Already Existent Statutory Delegates’. ‘So, maintain that status (status quo) till I determine the legality or otherwise of this’ ONE in contention ‘.
Etim submitted ”That the FHC sitting in Abuja in its Ruling, has not UPHELD the outcome of the alleged conduct of the Ad-hoc delegates’ elections which were purportedly or allegedly said to have been conducted across the 329 wards in Akwa Ibom State. If that was so, then the matter would not have been adjourned to Wed 25 May, 2022, as the court do not sit nor give order in vain.
”That the FHC Abuja sitting in Abuja has not CANCELLED the alleged outcome of the conduct of the Ad-hoc delegates’ elections which were purportedly or allegedly said to have been conducted across the 329 wards in Akwa Ibom State.
”That the FHC sitting in Abuja Ruled that STATUS QUO be maintained – meaning that Parties should not rely on the RES (subject of litigation) whether to the benefit or detriment of either of the Parties till Judgment(the determination of the substantive suit.)’’
Speaking with Straightnews after the ruling on Wednesday night, Friday Iwok said by the order, all parties would maintain status quo ante bellum. This means that the state of affairs before the holding of the Ward Ad-Hoc Congress of April 30, 2022 has been restored, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Suit.
