Kemisola Oye
JUSTICE Yetunde Pinheiro of a Lagos State High Court has reserved judgment in the suit filed by the reinstated Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, who is challenging the legality of the 13 January 2025 proceeding that led to his initial removal.
Justice Pinheiro also heard several preliminary objections by various counsel representing the defendants and said the date to deliver the judgment and rulings would be communicated to parties in due course.
Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN) who represents the claimant, Mr Obasa, urged the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the matter. He argues that the House was in recess at the time the lawmakers convened illegally on 13 January without duly informing either the Speaker or the Majority Leader who have the powers to reconvene any session during recess.
But, Femi Falana (SAN) whose legal authority to represent the House of Assembly was earlier affirmed by the court on Monday, opposed the suit brought by way of originating summons. He said the later proceedings of 3 March which saw the reelection of Mr Obasa as Speaker had overtaken the earlier proceedings.
One of the lead counsel representing the 3rd to the 35th defendants, Olu Daramola (SAN), in his arguments, said the removal of the Speaker is an internal affair of the House in which the courts cannot interfere. He added that the proceedings of 13 January were valid, having been held in the Assembly and the decision taken to remove the Speaker was taken by more than the constitutional requirement of a two-third majority of the members.
But the lead counsel representing the 36th to the 40th defendants, who are in support of the claimant’s action, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), said the 13 January sitting was done in clear violation of the rules governing the House of Assembly, which empowers the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the case.
In the preliminary objections of the first defendant, Mr Falana argues that the Speaker’s action should be dismissed by the court as it was instituted without a pre-action notice known to law issued on the House of Assembly.
He also contends that the House has the right to appoint and remove the Speaker and other principal officers of the House without the court’s interference.
He added that by virtue of his reelection as Speaker, and Mojisola Meranda being restored to her previous position of Deputy Speaker on 3 March, this case has become academic.
The counsel representing Mojisola Meranda as well as the 33 lawmakers also argued similar motions for the suit to be dismissed, saying it was an abuse of judicial processes as the Speaker agreed to be reelected and yet is suing the House of Assembly.
But responding the claimant’s counsel says there are live issues still remaining in the matter, including whether the proceedings of 13 January were constitutional, which he says the mere return of the Speaker has not resolved, and which needs the court to fully determine.
“We contend with the proceedings of 13 January as it deals with the constitutionality of that plenary. We also seek that the court nullify that proceedings because it wasn’t constitutional.”
Eighteen-Eleven Media