Lukman Olabiyi
An aspirant of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last governorship primary in Bayelsa State, Chief Ndutimi Alaibe, has accepted the recent Supreme Court’s verdict, bordering on legality of how state governor emerged as the party candidate in good faith.
Alaibe in a statement issued by his personal assistant, Ogio Enize ,yesterday stated that his supporters felt justifiably disappointed by the outcome of the case based on the supremacy of the court’s pronouncement, “ we have accepted it in good faith, however painful. We feel justified that from the trial court to the apex court, the repulsive processes that led to the primary were never endorsed by any of the courts”.
On Tuesday, July 14, the Supreme Court considered the appeal filed by Alaibe against PDP and four others challenging the foul processes that led to his defeat in the last governorship primary of the PDP in Bayelsa State.
The statement read: “In the course of considering the appeal, the apex court observed that the dispute agitating in the appeal was within the exclusive preserve of the political party; hence it could not be challenged by members of such a political party before any court of law.
“Thus, the court affirmed the supremacy of the political party to the effect that irrespective of any obvious or perceived irregularity in the processes leading to the nomination and sponsorship of candidates, the party’s decision remains final and that no court of law has the competence to adjudicate on such an issue.
“Based on observations and hints by the Supreme Court on this threshold issue, the lead Counsel to Alaibe, Chief I.A Adedipe SAN, in deference to the court, withdrew the appeal and same was accordingly dismissed.
“The merits of the appeal and the fundamental issues regarding the eligibility of the delegates that infested the Primary Election process was not determined and thus remained unresolved.
“Rather, the unquestionable though unsatisfying position of the apex court is that in accordance with existing laws and precedence, if complaints were outside the scope contemplated under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act that provides for right of action in pre-election matters”.
Alaibe, however, stated that in spite of the outcome of the case, he and his supporters were satisfied by their action insisting that “when criminality is ignored or allowed to continue unchallenged; those responsible for such actions and even the uninformed observers could accept it as a way of life.”