Edo AFAN drags national officers to court over appointment of caretaker committee
The crisis rocking the Edo State chapter of the All Farmers Association of Nigeria, AFAN, has taken a new dimension, with the national leadership of the association being dragged to court by the Alhaji Bako Dogwo-led state executive of the body.
DAILY POST reports that the Dogwo-led executive council and State Working Committee dragged the Registered Board of Trustees, National President of the association, Farouk Rabiu Mudi, Confidence Mac-Eteli, Deputy National President II, Dr Yunusa Halidu, National Secretary General and four others to a State High Court sitting in Benin City.
The officers were sued over the purported expulsion of the chairman and the subsequent replacement of his executive members with a caretaker committee.
Members of the caretaker committee, alongside the national leadership are Mr Godwin Asemota who is the caretaker committee chairman, Mr Efosa Atoe, Uzama Osaro and Mrs Agol Tracy Ebun
In an originating summons filed October 20, 2025, by Steven. A. Onokpachere, F.O. Osayande, for Teampact and Company counsel to the state AFAN’s Executives claimed that the 1st respondent usurped the office, the functions of the applicants by appointing the 2nd to 7th respondents as chairman and members of the caretaker committee of the body in the State.
Dogwo averred that the caretaker committee members were appointed by the 1st respondent without recourse to the provisions of article 13, paragraph 13.1, and article 18 of the AFAN constitution.
He said he was not informed in writing of any allegation (s) of any wrongdoing, financial misappropriation, disloyalty or any acts of fraud by the 1st respondent and /or given ample opportunity to make his representation and/or defence to any allegations, if any, before they were purportedly suspended and expelled from office.
He opined that the action of the 1st respondent is in breach of articles 13 and 18 of the association and also breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in section 36 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.
The Edo AFAN chairman added that the respondents are also aware that his single tenure of five years has not ended in line with Article 13 of the association’s constitution, which they have failed to comply with.
He, however, prayed the court to determine whether by the non-compliance with the provisions of articles 13, paragraph 13.1 and 18, 18.2, 18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.3 and 18.2.4 of AFAN, the 1st and 2nd respondents can oust the State executive whose tenure is still subsisting having been duly elected to serve for five years.
He also prayed the court to determine whether the unilateral appointment and swearing in of the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents as chairman and members of the caretaker committee by the 4th respondent on October 17, 2025 without recourse to the association’s constitution is legal, lawful and in order, in view of the fact that there is no provision for caretaker committee to run the affairs of the body at any levels in its constitution.
“Whether the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents by unilaterally appointing a caretaker committee headed by the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents to run the affairs of Edo State AFAN when the applicant and his working committee/executive council’s five years single term in office has not elapsed and without recourse to due process of law is an infringement on the applicant’s right to fair hearing under section 36 of the Nigeria constitution as amended”, he said.
He, however, prayed to the court to declare him the lawful state chairman of the association, as well as the appointment of caretaker committee members as illegal, null and void.
Other demands of the claimant were a declaration that his purported suspension and expulsion by the 1st and 2nd respondents is also unlawful and ultra vires and a violation of his constitutional right to fair hearing.
He further wants a declaration that the election or appointment of the 1st and 2nd respondents when the tenure of the executive has not ended is ultra vires, illegal, null and void.
He also wants a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their servants, agents, privies and assigns, whatever name or nomenclature so-called, from further interfering with the administrative affairs of the claimant and his executive pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit before the court.
The claimant is demanding the sum of N300 million only as damages suffered as a result of the acts of the respondents in subverting and allowing his rights to be subverted and usurped among others.