 All right, welcome back. It's still the breakfast on plus TV Africa. And of course we are set for a second major conversation right here on the program Malaki. Ogumaru is a lawyer and I guest on this second conversation on the breakfast. He joins us via video link in Lagos. Mr. Ogumaru, good morning to you and thank you very much for your time. I'm delighted to be with you. Good morning. Yes, indeed. Yes, thank you very much. The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on Monday refused to vacate an interim order which restrained the National Chairman of Labour Party Julius Apoore, the National Secretary Alhaji Farouk Ibrahim and two others from parading themselves as leaders of that party. Alex A.J.Ceme, city advocate of Nigeria, is counsel to Comrade Aboore. He had prayed the Court of the Kid the interim order after another faction had forcefully taken over the party's national secretariat. The senior lawyer said the division in the party following the interim order had worsened to the extent that four groups in the E-MOSTI chapter of Labour Party held parallel primaries over the weekend. As a result, the council prayed the Court to have the matter heard speedily, but Milord the Honourable Justice Muazu by way of intervention ordered all parties in the suit to ensure speedily filing of their processes and went there to fix April 20 to take all applications in respect of the case. So my question to you Malaki, what are your thoughts on such expati applications being granted in such a case? Well, let's be clear about this. Ex-party applications and orders are part of our jurisprudence in the sense that individual citizens or litigants are at liberty depending on the circumstances of their case. Most often than not, around the question of urgency and the needs to preserve the race are entitled to approach competent courts to seek with an application, an expati application to seek expati orders or what you may call interlocutory orders. What is important in instances like that, as it turned out in this case, is to marshal out, compelling and convincing evidence of facts indicating that where the order is refused there is likely, there is likelihood that when the race may be destroyed, it will be difficult to preserve the subject matter of the case. And thirdly, the court itself may have found itself in a state of helplessness by the time the matter is ripe for healing. Those in our words are like creating special circumstances with a view to persuading the court to accept your application. The flip side of it is that on so many occasions, the headship of the judiciary in Nigeria, particularly in this federal high court, had given clear warning and admonition and even restraining orders by way of practice and direction that judges must remain very, very, very circumspect. In short, at some point they were restrained for granting expati orders with respect to political matters, in political matters. Clearly, this was one of such political matters. And what did Leonard George presiding, what he carefully did, supposed to say, when I have had all of what you have come fast as the basis of your application. However, in the interest of justice, and you know we have a very cardinal pillar of justice, which is to the effect that the other party must be heard, resonating with the fundamental right of failure, generally referred to all the other party in our Latin max. So what did George, Leonard George say? Well, in the circumstances of your matter, put the respondents on notice, put the defendants on notice and come back also so that this same matter, which you have run before me, will be dealt with politically. Basically having both parties in court. You could say that part of the contention of the Lenin scenario was that what had happened, there were supervary circumstances, particularly in the party that not justifies an expati application. And for which reason, it was therefore very important that first being an interim order, an interim order is not supposed to last in perpetuity. And by a fluctuation of time, Leonard George ought to vacate, set aside the subsistence of the directing that the chairman, the national chairman of the liberal party stopped parodying. So these were the backgrounds. And I have given my take about it. One, it is not an abnormality, it is indeed a crucial aspect of the Nigerian jurisprudence. And it's in every other jurisdiction. The whole essence of it is to be able, in the circumstances of urgency and emergency, to preserve the rights, which is the subject matter of the matter, with a view to dealing with that exigency of that moment. Just so that by the time the matter is brought on notice, we wouldn't have this arrest, the subject matter of the matter wouldn't have been destroyed, in which case there would not be anything to litigate upon any longer. That is settled. What is not settled is what has turned out in our own client, in our own set concerns, that appears like an abuse of those interim orders. In short, what is used to obtain is that litigants, politicians in particular, will nudge the lawyers, urge them to seek those interim orders, and when they get it, they go to sleep. Most of them do not. These orders are obtained on the eve of very important statutory dimensions, statutory conventions. Just so we are clear, Mr. Ogunmado, just so we are clear, how long is this interim order supposed to last by law? Yes. Well, there is very simple answer to that. Interim orders, in the first instance, is supposed to last for 14 days. Two weeks. Now, by the end of that 14 days, the party who has sought the order, where he so wishes to have it extended, can also approach the same point, conversing reasons why the order should be extended, knowing that by the effliction of time, by the nature of the order itself, it elapses at the end of the phase. It's an interim order. In some of the cases, depending on the approach that you have adopted, you could have an application for interlocution. You could seek another interim order that pending the interlocution application. That interlocution application is usually designed to sustain the same order pending the determination of the whole matter. So, in the interim, for the purpose of the exigency of the term, I urge the court, please grant me this order, restraining these, you know, A, B, C, for the purpose of this, on the basis of social security. That order is granted. At the same time, you may have, in your mention, also find another application seeking interlocution order. That one, if granted, lasts pending the determination of the matter. If it takes 12 years, 4 years, 2 years, 8 months, you are no longer caught by the 14 days time frame. You said it before, you talked about the principle of fair hearing. And some lawyers have said that granting of these interlocutory orders, or expatriate orders, wrong contrary to that principle of fair hearing. Now, we've seen over the years that chief judges, so judges of, yeah, chief judges of, and even judges and lawyers have talked about, you know, taking away this aspect of the jurisprudence from political cases. You know, for instance, in 2018, the chief judge of the Federal High Court at the time, Justice Abdukha Farati, stopped judges from issuing expatriate orders in political cases. In fact, some jurists were asking or urging sanctions against lawyers and judges for issuing frivolous expatriate orders. We go to 2019, no, sorry, 2020, where Justice John Soho of the chief judge of the Federal High Court, again, Federal High Court, warned judges to stop granting expatriate orders in political matters. That's two successive chief judges of the Federal High Court, you know. And then the CJN in 2021, you know, had waged a war. It was said to have waged a relentless war against reckless expatriate orders. So I don't know where we're going to go from here. And it reminds me, sir, of Walter Norgan's attempt to, you know, take away this thing called technicality from judging matters of a political nature, which judges have continued to use. But what are your thoughts on this attempt by Labour Party's lawyer, or ABURA's lawyer, rather, to get the court to vacate the interim order for now? And then what the judge, the Honourable Judge said regarding that. I mean, we're not going to say that the judge doesn't know what it is. But what are your thoughts on that attempt to vacate the interim order? And of course the judge is saying that they should file their processes speedily. So what's at play here? Well, it's almost like the first question. But I need to thank you for putting this on the news, that I have mentioned that earlier, that the headship of the judiciary, known as the Federal High Court, had on so many occasions, you know, admonished judges to restrain themselves, shall to restrain from issuing expert orders, particularly with respect to political matters. And if I may take it a bit further. Part of it is that you don't appeal against expert orders. It's one of the essentials. You have a right of appeal constitutionally. You have also a right to proceed on appeal with the level of the court, the lower court or the court of appeal. But if the order is with respect to expert orders, you cannot appeal. It's almost like appealing against the territory orders. There's nothing to, I mean, seeking leave to stay the execution of the judiciary order. It doesn't work. So now, remaining on your question, it is that the latest in advocate in my view, and I have had a few comments on the other to the contrary. But the latest in advocate in my view, and portion to the structure he may have put, was within his rights, within his premise and premise to approach the court. I imagine that it is against the backdrop of these admonitions, that the court, they didn't try to put these applications. They said, go put the respondents on notice and come back and so on, so do you. Within which time this issue will be trashed out by both parties, by the competing parties. In other words, what was tactically refused was that scenario by which the latest in advocate had approached the court to appear all alone in an expected application and consequently to be able to obtain. Because once the motion is moved, once you allow the application to be moved, you must ruple. It could be virtually, it could be a ruling upon a resultant, but you must rule. That is in the nature of our practice and jurisprudence. So now your question is my take on all of this. First, within the context of the law, it is legitimate that they approach the court. Also within the context of the law, particularly regarding the inherent jurisdiction. Don't forget, these are discretionary powers injunctions, injunctive orders, whether mandatory or interlocute or whatever. Within what we call the discretionary powers of the court to give. Now, the point therefore is that where the circumstances where the court is persuaded that it will serve the interest of justice the more. Which is usually the case to have both parties available to be able to deal with the circumstances of that matter. He proceeds, it is at his description, arising or drawing from his inherent jurisdiction to be able to deal. Haven't accepted to deal with the matter. So, haven't said that and that is situated within the context of the law. Politically, you could see that we're not selling smoothly. In a sense that what has become a very major factor, a defining moment, a change game or game changer was the participation of that political party known as Labour Party. But more importantly, the emergence of their presidential candidates as well as their instrumentation. Okay, Mr Agoomalu, just a moment. I just want to understand this because we're running out of time. I want to understand the premise under which the courts take their decisions. You know, I am a layman, you are the lawyer, so I don't understand this. Now, if someone comes to the court to get an interim order as it were, in this case that is what is happening. Does the court just collect what has been offered to them by this lawyer or this party that is coming for the interim order? So, they are at liberty to also make a research to see whether the allegations or whether the reason for applying for this interim order are good enough or strong enough. I tell you why I'm asking this. The chairman of Labour Party that has been removed or suspended was suspended if, according to what they are saying, the Constitution of Labour Party states that the only person or the only people that can suspend this person of this calibre will have to be the National Executive Council of the party. Clearly, the people who suspended him were not. So if this party coming to get this order came and they were not supposed to do this, is the court not supposed to do its own findings to see whether this is just a frivolous order that has been sought? Because if that Constitution says that he cannot be removed by the people that came and obtained this interim order, and then the court has gone ahead to grant them this order, don't explain to us how the court makes its decisions, how they take its decisions, and now they are even preventing a vacation of that order because that's how I understand it. So how do they make their decisions? Just what they feed them. Thank you very much. Thank you. That's a very valuable question. And if I may add to the controversy as it is, I will tell you that there have been opposing orders by courts of co-ordination in different judicial divisions. The one in Abu Dhabi restraining, the one in Beglin in particular, allowed. And then it's refused one more time by the Abu Dhabi pharaoh court. So I speak to the controversy that has capacity to generate in a fragile quality like ours, no less in political environment. But back to your question. You know, I had tried the much I could to describe what an S-party application is and what an S-party order also means. What you need to know in addition to what I had said earlier regarding the question directly, which is how do judges come to that conclusion? Do they just grant these orders without some background checks and research? That would be completely uncharitable if we were to accept that that is how they come to conclusion. Make no mistake about it. It could be true. And of course evidence about reports are also valuable, even by judicial partners of inquiry. One headed, Tomarinole, by late Justice Kaya De'Asha, complaining about the problem in the judiciary. But make no mistake about it, like I said. The Nigerian judiciary stands out as one of the most resilient, one of the most formidable. And I have had course in my little years of practice to even present and papers that engage the Nigerian judiciary at the highest level in terms of giving lectures on areas of expertise. And I could relate to the challenges. So I make that point that yes, perhaps because of the expectation, because of what is expected of the judiciary anywhere in the world, within a political formation or entity. So the expectation is very high. And therefore where you see transgressions from one or two, it is as though you have seen the risks of the conflict for instance, committing unpardonable offenses. But your question is directed as to do they just grant these orders? And I say, no, usually experts are constituted by the motion itself. The motion seeks reliefs. Those reliefs are real. But more importantly, the motion is supported by affidavits. These affidavits are statements of facts in relation to the reliefs being sought. By which the applicant is able or tries to show to the court that given the peculiarities of these facts as I present them, most of them are not. In some cases, you will find what we call affidavit of which is, so these facts speaks to the court and the need to ensure that if this order is not given in term, it is likely that by the time you put the other party on notice, the whole purpose for which you have run to be called would have been excluded. Okay. Sorry to interject, apologies for that. We just have one final question. And you've already thankfully gone ahead to address the issue of conflicting orders from courts of coordinate jurisdiction, which is quite funny anyway. And before you go, the leadership of the Nigel Labour Congress earlier stormed, I think last week or this week stormed the headquarters of the Labour Party. They said they were there to fumigate rodents. A veiled reference to the other faction, the Apapa faction of the party who had taken over the Labour Party headquarters. Do you think this action by the judicial body in Nigel Labour Congress, sorry, is it inimical to the case as far as Labour Party Aburi is concerned? Should they be doing this, going to the headquarters to take it over and to say in the words of the chairman of the Nigel Labour Congress, Conrad Jess, Joshua Jero, that Aburi is the authentic chairman of the party. Does that work? Well, let me, I didn't watch that, but I had it. First, Nigerians should be aware that it's a new sheriff in town as far as the Nigel Labour Congress is concerned. And that is Conrad Joe Agero, a very effective and a very tested Conrad in the struggle. Now, the second point is that the Nigerian Labour Congress as a trade union is a cardinal part of the Labour Party. In short, you could say that they are the drivers of that Labour Party. What I take it to be is that there was a solidarity movement of visit by the leadership of the Congress to the political party, which is the political arm of that platform, by which they have created a huge opportunity for Nigerians who probably are dissatisfied with the political elite to find a platform around which they congregate and pursue their political aspirations. So the fact that to the Nigerian people and what the Nigerian people feel about it is what have been shown in the last general election, even if they are caught at the moment contestant. So as a lawyer, and Conrad Joe Agero too, I think he's a lawyer too, or a dictator becoming a lawyer with due respect, all of us must know that orders of court are orders of court. In fact, Section 287, the Samaran Substitution Theory of the same section of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Niger as a mandate imposes a duty on every person, every authority, every agency to not only to respect Conrad, but to seek to enforce it, to help to enforce it, so that if the Supreme Court gives an order, every other court below the Supreme Court, every authority, every agency of government, every institution becomes obligated to obey that order, detailed for the court of appeal and every court below it as well as so forth. And the point is clear, that in my view, what I think happened was a political move by a very conscious, and you must give that to the people, you must give that to us, you must give that to some of the civil societies including the one I have led, the Committee for the Friendship of Human Rights, which was the second civil society of the nation after CNO that was formed in 1987. You must give that consciousness, that consciousness is so deep that they realize at all time, at all material time, that surveillance is a tender price they must continue to pay for the liberty that they seek, for the freedom that they desire. So you cannot hold your hand and watch as the roof of the building that has taken you toys and sweat and pay to build collapses on the air, on the air, on the air notes. So I think that what had happened was a solidarity move by an integral aspect of that party, which is liberal movement, liberal congress. With a view to identify with, first of all, observing that this has become a situation, but more importantly, to say that it is a challenge which is in response to the alternative that they are trying to create to the political class. And that all of what has happened could be a direct reaction which is in proportion and measure to the kind of attrition that they have introduced into the party. So by the point must be made, rather clearly, and I'm at this point repeating myself, that orders of court must not just be obeyed, must be enforced by every person. And if we take it from there, you likely going to have a less chaotic society, because if orders of court are treated with levity, it will mean that we are all looking at the last muscle before. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time. Malaki Goumado Lawyer who joined us from Lagos, we appreciate your joining us this morning. Look forward to having you again. Totally enjoyed your analysis. Thank you for your opportunities. Same to you, same to you. I'm good. It's interesting that the courts are the ones giving. They're saying that, you know, a party chairman cannot parade as a party chairman for now. But the same court, not the same court, but still the same legal system is saying that a party cannot remove or suspend its members. We're talking about Sandia now and his running mate versus a PDP. And Simphubara, aka Wikis Kwakashia, and his running mate versus a PDP. Because I said, no, we can't remove them, we can't suspend them, nothing. So these are some of the things that confuse us, but we'll get out of it as time goes on. All right, we'll take a break. When we come back, we will talk sports. Yamko, which football club do you support? I've told you. Supragos. We'll be right back. Stay with us.