The Peoples Democratic Party and its National Chairman, Alhaji Adamu Mu’azu, on Wednesday at a Federal High Court in Abuja opposed the move to return Alhaji Bamanga Tukur as the leader of the party.

Tukur resigned as the National Chairman of the party on January 15, 2014, but he has asked the court to reinstate him to the position.

Tukur urged the court to declare him chairman as his resignation letter did not meet the requirement of the PDP’s constitution, which made it mandatory for 30 days notice to be given before the resignation would become effective.

He also maintained that the National Deputy Chairman ought to have taken over the affairs of the party and not Mu’azu, who was only appointed and not elected at a national convention as prescribed by the party’s constitution.

This is also contained in a counter-claim which he filed in a suit instituted by another member of the PDP, Aliyu Gurin, who is challenging the propriety of Tukur’s resignation.

But the PDP and Mu’azu, through their counsel, Mr. Solomon Umoh (SAN), said both the main suit and Tukur’s counter-claim constituted an abuse of court processes and urged Justice Evoh Chukwu to dismiss them.

Umoh argued that Tukur was, by his prayer, seeking to benefit from his wrong act of walking away without giving the party the 30 days notice.

“The court should hold that the 2nd defendant (Tukur) cannot take benefit of his wrongful act,” he added.

He said contrary to Tukur’s contention, the deputy chairman of the party took over the affairs of the party and not Mu’azu, after his (Tukur’s) resignation.

The lawyer argued that it was the national deputy chairman, who summoned the meeting which produced Mu’azu as the national chairman, and that the party was only waiting for the time of its national convention.

“We have practically shown when the 2nd defendant gave a beautiful speech and walked away and the deputy chairman took over in line with the party’s constitution and on January 20, the deputy national chairman summoned a meeting as minutes of the meeting would show, and this gave birth to the current national chairman.”

 “By virtue of provisions of Order 13 Rule 35(15), all that a defendant is expected to do is to file a counter-affidavit and showcase his exhibit,” he said.