Defected Lawmakers have no business in the National Assembly – Abuja Court

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja today held that the defected lawmakers have no business remaining in the house since they left the party that brought them in. Justice Ademola Adeniji stated this while delivering judgement  in a suit filed by the tuling Peoples Democractic Party PDP challenging the defecting law makers who left […]

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja today held that the defected lawmakers have no business remaining in the house since they left the party that brought them in.

Justice Ademola Adeniji stated this while delivering judgement  in a suit filed by the tuling Peoples Democractic Party PDP challenging the defecting law makers who left the party for the APC.

The court however stopped the House of Representatives from changing its principal officers.

According to Justice Ademola, the defected lawmakers ought to have resigned honorably and leave the house.
The defected lawmakers had however said they will challenge the judgement at the Court of Appeal.
The Peoples Democratic Party PDP had sued  the House of Representatives, and listed as 2nd  to 10th  defendants all the principal officers of the House comprising the Speaker, Deputy Speaker (Emeka Ihedioha), Mulikat Akande-Adeola (The Majority Leader), Leo Ogor (Deputy Majority Leader), Isiaka Bawa (Chief Whip), Ahmed Mutkar(Deputy Chief Whip), Gbajabiamila (Minority Leader), Samson Osagie (Minority Whip) and Sumaila Kawu (Deputy Minority Leader).
All the APC lawmakers that decamped from the PDP were also cited in the matter as the 12th  to 53rd  defendants.
Speaker of the House, Mr Aminu Tambuwal had joined forces with APC lawmakers in asking that the suit be dismissed for want of diligent prosecution.

Justice Adeniyi Ademola held further that the Originating Summons is justiceable and hence, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
He held that where the fundamental rights of any person is at the stake, the court has the power to intervene.
On the issue of abuse of court process which was raised by the defendants, the court held that the plaintiff in the instant case is a defendant in other cases and hence the issue of abuse of court process does not arise.
He held that the abuse of court process is misconceived and hence dismissed it.
On locus standi, the court held that the plaintiff has locus to file the suit.
The court having determined all the objections raised by the defendants entered jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The court further held that in view of the provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, the 12th to 53rd defendants cannot effect changes in the leadership of the House.
He also held that the 12th to 53rd defendants cannot vote to remove the leadership of the house and also cannot sponsor a motion to that effect.

The court however granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 12th to 53rd defendants from effecting change in the leadership of the house.
Justice Adeniyi also granted an order restraining the defendants from altering, tampering or moving towards effecting change in the leadership of the house.

 

Details later.