The ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has asked a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to restrain the House of Representatives from altering the composition of its leadership.The PDP, in a suit it filed on January 7 wants the court to among others, restrain House of Representatives’ Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, other principal officers of the House and its defecting members in the House from taking any step “to alter or change the leadership of the 1st defendant (PDP).”
The suit has the House of Reps, it’s Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, other principal officers of the House and its former members who defected to the All Progressive Congress (APC) as defendants. An officer of the PDP, Nanchang Ndam, stated in a supporting affidavit that while the defection of some of the defendants was still a subject of litigation before Justice Mohammed, the defendants, particularly the Minority Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila have issued threats to change the leadership of the House.
He stated that unless the defendants were restrained, they could carry out the threat and thereby prejudice the earlier suit, cause a breakdown of law and other and parallel the activities of the House. The plaintiff, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2/2014 raised two questions for the court’s determination and sought for four reliefs.
The PDP wants the court to determine whether, in view of the mandatory provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution, and in view of the pendency of an earlier suit by the defecting law makers, they (the defecting legislators) can participate in any proceedings to remove the House’ principal officers. The party equally wants the court to determine whether, in view of the provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution and the pending suit by the defecting legislators, they (the defecting law makers) can lawfully alter the composition or constitution of the House’s leadership.
It is praying the court to declare that in view of Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution and the pending case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/621/2013 the defecting lawmakers “cannot lawfully vote and contribute to any motion for the removal or change of any of the principal officers” of the House. PDP also wants the court to declare that the defecting lawmakers, who are plaintiffs in the earlier suit before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the same court, “are not competent to sponsor, contribute or vote on any motion calling for the removal or change in the leadership of the House or the removal of any principal officers of the House.”
It prayed the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from “altering or changing the House’s leadership. The PDP equally filed an application for interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from altering the leadership of the House pending the determination of the substantive suit.
One of the defendants’ lawyer, Sebastine Hon (SAN) has urged the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction. In a notice of preliminary objection he filed yesterday for the 11th to 30 th defendants, Hon contended that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to institute the suit; that the suit is not justiceable; that the court lacked the jurisdiction to dabble into the internal affairs of the House, and that the case amounts to an academic or hypothetical exercise.
He also filed a counter affidavit to the plaintiff’s application for interlocutory injunction, challenging the competence of the application. Last Friday, Justice Adeniyi Ademola refused an ex-parte application by the PDP, in which it sought to restrain the defendants from among others, altering the House’s leadership.
He ordered the party to put the defendants on notice and adjourned to yesterday.
When parties returned to court yesterday, defendants’ lawyers, Hon, Mohammud Magaji (SAN), James Ocholi (SAN) and Eric Apia objected to move by plaintiff’s lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN) to argue his application for interlocutory injunction.
The defendants’ lawyers argued that they were served last Friday and were entitled to 48 hours to reply. They sought for time to respond. Justice Ademola acceded to the defendants’ request. He gave them up to January 16 to file their responses and serve the plaintiff. He adjourned to January 20 for hearing of the application for interlocutory injunction.
No comments:
Post a Comment