The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, slated March 10 to hear an appeal the embattled National Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, filed to challenge his sack by the Court of Appeal in Enugu.
A five-member panel of the apex court led by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, okayed accelerated hearing of the case.
It will be recalled that the appellate court had in a judgement it delivered last December, upheld a High Court verdict that sacked Senator Anyanwu and recognized Chief Ude Okoye as the authentic national scribe of the party.
In its lead judgement that was delivered by Justice Ridwan Abdullahi, the appellate court dismissed as incompetent and lacking in merit, Anyanwu’s bid to upturn the decision of the high court.
The court held that Anyanwu’s continued stay in office as National Secretary was in breach of PDP’s Constitution, having contested and emerged as the party’s candidate in the governorship election that held in Imo State last year.
However, dissatisfied with the concurrent judgements of the two courts, Anyanwu approached the Supreme Court to set them aside.
Aside from his substantive appeal, he equally filed a motion for accelerated hearing and for the abridgment of time within which the matter would be determined, citing the crucial role of the office of National Secretary in the affairs of the political party.
Ruling on the motion on Tuesday, the apex court granted the application and ordered service of the court processes on the respondent, Mr Aniagu Emmanuel, whose suit led to Anyanwu’s removal.
The apex court held that the respondent must file his reply within three days of receiving the processes.
The court did not hear Anyanwu’s appeal for a stay of execution of the judgements against him.
It will be recalled that both the Board of Trustees, BOT, and the National Working Committee, NWC, of the PDP, had earlier endorsed Chief Okoye as the National Secretary of the party, in line with the subsisting court judgements.
Anyanwu had outrightly rejected the decisions, insisting that the position is still the subject of an ongoing litigation.
