The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court has fixed April 2 to decide who is the authentic governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Enugu State.

Justice Evoh Chukwu adjourned for judgment on a day two PDP gubernatorial aspirants in the state, Senator Ayogu Eze and Mr. Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, insisted that they are the duly elected candidates to fly the governorship flag of the party.

Both of them told the court that they emerged from parallel primary elections they said were monitored by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Whereas Ayogu Eze argued through his lawyer, Mr. Yusuf Ali (SAN), Ugwuanyi, addressed the court through his own lawyer, Mr. Patrick Ikwueto (SAN).

Though it was Ayogu Eze that lodged the substantive suit before the court, Ugwuanyi who is currently enjoying the support of the national leadership of the PDP subsequently applied and was joined as an interested party in the matter.

Other defendants in the suit by Ayogu Eze are the PDP, its National Chairman, Mr. Adamu Mu’azu and INEC.

Meanwhile, all the defendants yesterday urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of merit.

Arguing through its lawyer Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), PDP and its Chairman challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit which they said was within the purview of a domestic affair of a political party.

The 1st and 2nd defendants told the court that the plaintiff emerged through a kangaroo primary election which they said was not certified by the National Working Committee (NWC), of the party.

Ikpeazu argued that under section 87 of the Electoral ‎Act, only primary election sanctioned by the NWC of the party could be deemed valid.

He told the court that Ayogu Eze ‎actually came to the venue where the “authentic primary” election that produced Ugwuanyi was conducted, but stormed out with some of his supporters to another venue to conduct the parallel primary poll where he was declared winner.

PDP further refuted the allegation that it jettisoned a list of delegates that was originally approved by the high court, insisting that it was never at any time mandated by any court judgment to stick to any particular list of delegates.