A Peoples Democratic Party, PDP governorship aspirants in the last party guber primaries in Abia State, Hon. Sampson Orji says he never withdrew from the race before the May 25 primaries of the party.
Orji, also known as SCUORJ is in court challenging the legality of the primaries that produced Prof Uche Ikonne as the party’s guber candidate, citing irregularities in the conduct of the party’s three-man congress and asking the court to nullify the primaries, and declare him the PDP governorship candidate for Abia.
Speaking through his counsel, Barr Rilwan Idris at the Federal High Court Umuahia where the matter is being handled, Orji said he did not withdraw from the primaries, faulting the three-man ad-hoc congress which he alleged was not properly conducted by the party.
He said there was no evidence of any withdrawal letter signed by him and submitted to his party as required by the Electoral Act, explaining that he fully participated in the primary and in court to challenge the non-compliance of the party with due process in the conduct of the ad-hoc congress.
According to Barr Idris, “Orji fully participated in the primaries. What the PDP and Ikonne are alleging is that he withdrew, but that is not correct.
“The law is very clear as to withdrawal of candidates. Section 31 of the Electoral Act says that such a candidate ought to deliver a letter in writing to his party which must be duly received.
“In this case, he never wrote such a letter; never withdrew. The withdrawal they are alleging is based on snapping picture with those they claimed that withdrew”.
However, most worrisome, Idris said is the non appearance of the Respondents (the PDP and Prof. Uche Ikonne) in court for Friday’s hearing, which he described as “applying delay tactics to buy time” and expressed his worry that hearing was yet to commence, a month before the expiration of the electoral guideline.
“Pre-election and election matters are to be determined within 180 days. We filed this suit since June 7, and duly served the defendants, but after three months, they did not file their response.
“We came for hearing in September and the court said the processes had to be served on the defendants again. The defendants came up with a motion for extension of time, but more than two adjournments have been made and this is stalling the hearing.
“Today, the lawyers to the defendants were not in court. The court did not sit and no reason was given for that. The court should realise that it does not have jurisdiction to extend time on pre-election matters.
“I don’t know what they want to do but the matter has to be decided within the stipulated time. We have about one month left. But we have full confidence that we will get justice”, he said.
