Ganduje’s Suspension Reportage, Media Ethics and the Law

Let me begin with a caveat! I am entirely uninterested in the internal squabbles of the APC with respect to the issue of suspension of Mr Ganduje. It is a purely political issue with no direct bearing on the people.

But as a lawyer, I am bothered about what is reported of Nigeria courts especially where there appears to be some kind of mischief or twisting of court’s directive and intendment for whatever reason thereby leading to embarrassment of the courts.

Yesterday, various reputable news outlets including Premium Times and Channels TV reported that Kano State High Court has affirmed the suspension of Ganduje from the APC and restrained him from presiding over affairs of the NWC of the party.

This came after I had granted an interview to Freedom Radio where I shared my views on the implication of the court’s order which in effect ordered none of what these major news outlets had reported.

Although there are typos and grammatical flaws and ambiguities,(usually attributed to court clerk) on the face the order which even non-lawyers can detect, the order truly only direct parties to the suits to maintain “status quo ante” in relation to the supposed suspension of Ganduje as member of the APC by his ward’s party executives.

The order directed parties to maintain “status quo ante” as at the 15th April, 2024 in relation to the suspension of the respondent from the APC by the Ganduje ward executive committee. The remaining part of the order although clearly vague and grammatically untenable, does not restrain Ganduje from parading himself as the chairman of the APC.

There was no mention of the APC’s NWC anywhere in the order, not to talk of restraining Ganduje from presiding over it. Also, status quo ante as at the 15th April,2024 was that there were claims and counterclaims with respect to the validity of the suspension. While the supposed ward executives claimed to have suspended Mr Ganduje, the local and state chapters of the party and indeed a portion of the ward’s leadership claiming to have been impersonated, all posited otherwise. This was all in the news on date of interest- the 15th April, 2024.

The question therefore is, how did all the many news outlets reduced the facts to arrive at the report that status quo ante only meant affirmation of suspension when there’s clearly more to the facts of the status quo?

The implication of such order is that all set of facts constituting the prevailing state of affairs as at that date in question shall be maintained by all parties pending the determination of the “Motion on Notice”(and not the “substantive suit” as Premium Times and others reported in quotes as if reproducing what the court ordered)

So, status quo in the circumstance of this case in addition to the suspension claim, very well recognized the official position of the APC which claimed that there has been a fraudulent suspension of Mr Ganduje and that fact that as at the date in question Ganduje has not formally accepted his suspension or vacated his seat as chairman of the party.

From the legal perspective, all lawyers know that an ex parte order of directing for the maintenance of status quo ante cannot restrain a person from holding his position especially where that person has never at any time vacated his position owing to an earlier administrative action. This is in line with of observance of the principle of Balance of Convenience”.

I know some will argue that there’s a part of the order which appears to have a restraining tone, the portion without any conjunctions and immediately after the first and comprehensive part of the order reads “restraining the respondents whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies from taking any steps contrary to the decision of the Executive Committee of Gandule Ward which suspends the 4th respondent from the 1st respondent political party pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice”

That part of the order does not in my humble view form part of the order of court. It is either a narrative of the action of the wards executive committee or was simply wrongly included into the order. This is because the court only handed down one class of injunction which is “order for maintenance of status quo”. This order is not in the same class as an order for “restriction”. In fact, in many cases, as in the one at hand, the two different genres of court orders can be mutually exclusive. You cannot in the same breath direct someone to stay where he is (status quo) and direct him to vacate his seat (restraining injunction) when the person hasn’t actually and unequivocally left that seat.

This is why I concluded that the ending part of the order is vague because it began with the article “an” indicating singular as thus “An order of interim injunction is hereby granted…” reading the order in one swoop cannot make legal or language sense.

While it is understandable that court orders can be difficult to interpret by non-lawyers, the many conflicting reports I saw yesterday on the matter, just cannot be excused. It is perhaps the reason why APC saw reason petition NJC on the matter.

It may be more sensational and attention-grabbing to report that the court has interimly removed Mr. Ganduje from his position, but media ethics and integrity and responsibility calls for restraint and circumspection.