 |
| Tambuwal & Buhari |
(LOUD NEWS TODAY-ABUJA). House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal has appealed against Monday’s judgment by Justice Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, restraining some defecting members of the House from altering the current composition of its leadership.
In a notice of appeal filed in Abuja, on Tuesday, by his lawyer, Mahmud Magaji, the appellants faulted Justice Ademola’s reasoning and urged the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to set aside the judgment.
The judgment was in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/4/14, filed by PDP against the House of Representatives, its principal officers and members, who defected from PDP to the opposition APC.
The appellants, who raised seven grounds of appeal, with a promise to add more, argued that the judgment was “perverse and not supported by the reliefs sought by the plaintiff,” adding that the trial judge “erred in law when he granted reliefs not sought by the plaintiff.”
The appellants contended that the judgment was against the weight of evidence, adding that the judge erred “when he granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and went further to hold that the first to 39th respondents ought to have resigned their seats as members of the first appellant.”
They argued that the judge erred when he held that the reliefs of the first respondent (PDP) were justiciable and proceeded to grant the reliefs sought without considering the provision of Section 30 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap L12 Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
The section provides that: “Neither the President nor the Speaker, as the case may be, of a legislative house shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in him by or under this Act or the standing orders of the Constitution.”
The appellants argued that the trial judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the suit, which was predicated on the internal affairs of the House of Representatives, while further arguing that the reliefs sought by the PDP were not justiciable, yet the trial judge proceeded to grant the reliefs.
They contended that the PDP lacked the locus standi to institute the case because it was not predicated on any recognised legal interest; while the reliefs sought were not supported by any legal evidence.
They held that that the judge failed to reckon with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Fawehinmi vs Akilu (1987) 12 SC 136, Amaechi vs INEC (2008)1 LRECN 1.
The appellants faulted the trial judge for holding that the suit was rightly commenced with originating summons, without regard to the provision of Order Three Rule Six of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009.
They also argued that the judge was wrong to have held that the claims of the PDP did not amount to an abuse of court process when there were similar cases involving the same parties still pending before the court.
Also, the APC Caucus in the House of Representatives accused Justice Ademola for doing the bidding of PDP in the suit filed against 37 of its members.
Briefing newsmen on behalf of APC caucus in the House, the minority whip, Honourable Samson Osagie, maintained that “we shall not give in to the attempt of some of our PDP colleagues in collusion with a certain judge to turn facts and law on its head to achieve some sinister ends.”
He added that, the judgement was an attempt by the court to meddle in the internal affairs of the parliament, adding that this was not the import of the doctrine of judicial review.
“As we speak, our colleagues have appealed the vexatious ruling and we hope to get justice soon. We believe the House of Representatives will take due notice of the appeal in this case,” he said.
According to him, “we were not surprised because, in the course of the proceedings, the same judge had earlier issued a preservative order as soon as the arguments against his jurisdiction in the case was taken. This was our first apprehension at the commencement of the case.”
He added that “our fears were further confirmed when the judge, after granting the reliefs sought in the suit, went ahead to render an opinion on issues that were not before him, nor solicited by the plaintiffs.”
Osagie lamented that a section of the media and, indeed, the public had been misled by the court ruling into believing that the said judgment had effectively terminated the tenure of office of the affected members.
“This is not only untrue, but also a mere obiter dicta expressed by a judge who veered off the course of the case before him, in order to do the bidding of the ruling party. At best, the judgment has turned law on its head and cannot stand,” he said.
How judgment stalls Tambuwal’s defection to APC.
The judgment, it was gathered, stalled the planned defection of Honourable Tambuwal to APC.
This came just as the House Leader, Honourable Mulikat Adeola-Akande, convened an emergency PDP caucus meeting, to review the judgment.
Loud News Today gathered that the Speaker had been under intense pressure from his home state, Sokoto and lawmakers from his state, who had also defected alongside others.
Lawmakers from Sokoto who were affected by the suit included Kabiru Marafa Achida, Aminu Shagari, Isa Salihu Bashir, Abdullahi Moh’d Wammako, Sa’adu Nabunkari, Aliyu Shehu, Shuaibu Gobir, Musa Sarkin’adar and Abdullahi Balarabe Salake.
Sources in the House told the Nigerian Tribune that the Speaker had already perfected plan to defect to the APC alongside others, but the court judgment stalled the move.
One of the sources informed theLoud News Today that Governor Aliyu Wamakko of Sokoto was not happy with the Speaker for his continuous stay in PDP.
The PDP caucus meeting, the Loud News Today learnt, was held at Hearing Room 028 of the House of Representatives, where members extensively deliberated on the outcome of the judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment