An Abuja Federal High Court on Monday
ordered members of the House of Representatives to refrain from changing
or taking step to change the leadership of the legislative body,
pending the determination of a suit filed by the Peoples Democratic
Party.
The court, presided over by Justice Adeniyi Ademola, ordered the lawmakers to maintain status quo.
In the pending suit, PDP is asking for
an order of perpetual injunction restraining the House of
Representatives; its Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal; Deputy Speaker, Emeka
Ihedioha; and 49 others, including the 37 lawmakers that defected to the
All Progressives Congress, from changing or altering the leadership of
the House.
The court gave the order at the
resumption of hearing in the pending suit on Monday, after counsel to
the PDP and the defendants argued over which applications the court
should hear first.
PDP lawyer, Yunus Usman, SAN, wanted the court to hear his motion for interlocutory injunction first.
In a short ruling after listening to the
submissions of the two parties, Justice Ademola ruled that the court
would hear the preliminary objections along with the originating
summons.
He fixed February 3 for the hearing.
But the judge went ahead to order the
members of the House of Representatives to maintain status quo until the
final determination of the case.
Noting that the court has a duty to
preserve the subject matter before it, Justice Ademola stated, “The
defendants, particularly the first to eleventh defendants, are to
maintain status quo pending the hearing and determination of this suit.”
The first to eleventh defendants are
namely: the House of Representatives; Speaker, Aliyu Tambuwal; Deputy
Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha; Majority Leader, Mulikat Akande-Adeola; Deputy
Majority Leader, Leo Ogor; Chief Whip, Isiaka Bawa; Deputy Chief Whip,
Ahmed Mutkar; Minority Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila; Minority Whip, Samsom
Osagie; Deputy Minority Leader, Sumaila Kawu; and Deputy Minority Whip,
Graba Datti.
Forty-two other members of the House,
including those that defected from PDP to the APC, were listed as the
12th to 53rd defendants, while the Clerk of the House was cited as the
54th defendant.
The defection of the lawmakers had
reportedly given the APC a simple majority in the House, increasing its
numerical strength from 135 to 172, against 171 PDP members.
In a brief encounter with journalists
afterwards, one of the lawyers of the defendants, Sebastine Hon, SAN,
said he and his colleagues would meet their clients to know the next
course of action.
On the other hand, PDP lawyer, Usman,
stressed that the order means that all the principal officers in office
as at the time the suit was filed should remain in office, and must not
be tampered with, until the final determination of the matter.
PDP had filed the suit against a
backdrop of speculations that some members of the House would push for a
change in leadership once the lawmakers resume from recess.
The National Assembly will resume today.
In the pending suit, PDP is asking the
court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the lawmakers,
“their agents, servants, privies, or through any person or persons
however, from taking any step or further steps, sitting, starting or
doing anything to alter, remove or change the leadership of the House of
Representatives.”
In the same vein, PDP asked the court to
declare that, in view of section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, and
another pending suit with No. FHC/ABJ/CS/621/2013, in which the
defected lawmakers sought to stop the party from declaring their seats
vacant, the 11th to 52nd defendants cannot lawfully vote or contribute
to any motion for the removal or change of any of the principal officers
of the House.
The court was equally asked to declare
that the concerned lawmakers are not competent to sponsor, contribute or
vote on any motion calling for the removal or change in the leadership
of the House of Representatives or the removal of any of the principal
officers.
PDP asked the court to determine whether
the defected lawmakers can validly function as members of the House of
Representatives and thereby contribute to or vote on any motion or
debate for the removal of any of the principal officers of the House;
and whether the concerned lawmakers can alter the composition of the
House’s leadership.
The defendants have however, asked the court to dismiss the suit.
In their preliminary objections, they
argued that the suit was incompetent, and that the court lacked the
jurisdiction to hear the matter.
SOURCE: www.punchng.com
No comments:
Post a Comment