APC’s Govs, NEC Shop For Oshiomhole’s Replacement Amid Court’s Sack Order

Some Governors under the platform of the All Progressive Congress (APC), have intensified moves to find a replacement for Comrade Adams Oshiomhole following his temporary suspension as national chairman of the party by a court.

The court presided by Justice Danlami Senchi had on Wednesday granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Oshiomhole in an application filed on January 16 by a member of the APC, Oluwale Afolabi.

This is coming as there were indications on Wednesday that they would soon convene a meeting of the party’s NEC, where Oshiomhole’s successor might emerge.

A high-ranking member of the party, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said, “The governors are considering calling for an emergency National Executive Council meeting to consider the way forward.”

“They are likely to pick an acting National Chairman and prepare for a substantive chairman. They are considering asking him to honourably resign. President Muhammadu Buhari refused to say anything on the matter when they ran to him. As things stand, an emergency meeting is on the cards because until the court order is vacated, Oshiomhole cannot convene any official meeting.”

But Oshiomhole appears to be fighting back already and have filed for stay of execution, and an application seeking vacation of the temporary sack order.

Commenting on the issue, the spokesperson for the suspended national chairman, Simon Ebegbulem, said, “We have filed for a stay of execution and appealed the order. Comrade Adams Oshiomhole remains the national chairman.”

According to Punch report, Oshiomhole appealed against the order for his suspension on Wednesday.

He filed four grounds of appeal before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, praying for an order setting aside the interlocutory injunction issued by Justice Danlami Senchi of the FCT High Court.

In the notice of appeal filed in his name and that of the APC, the appellants contended that the judge “arrived at a wrong conclusion” in his ruling and it “occasioned a miscarriage of justice”.

The appellants also argued through his lawyer, Mr Damian Dodo (SAN), that the judge in his ruling prejudged the substantive case by  erroneously delving into the issue of his performance of the duty of his office as the national chairman of the party at the preliminary stage.

They added, “The trial court determined the motion for interlocutory injunction without recourse to triable issues which ought to have been discerned from pleadings.”

Oshiomhole also said the court relied on “extraneous construction and speculation to overrule the appellants’ contention that  the disruption capable of being occasioned by the grant of the interlocutory injunction outweighed the inconvenience to be suffered by the first to the sixth respondents.