Piqued by the judgement of the Federal High Court sitting Abuja, asking them to vacate their seats, 37 members of House of Representatives who have defected from the ruling PDP to APC Friday filed stay of execution suit at the Court of Appeal.
It will be recalled that Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had ruled that the defecting lawmakers should not participate in debates and motions at plenary having defected from the party (PDP) that brought them to the House.
Justice Ademola, while delivering judgement on the matter brought before it by the leadership of the PDP, granted a perpetual injunction, restraining members of the House of Representatives from effecting leadership change.
Prompt News recalls that the Judge also held that since the 37 lawmakers had defected to another party, they should have vacated their seats.
But, 18 of the affected lawmakers have kicked against the judgement and have jointly filed an appeal against the entire decision of the trial court.
The 18 members are: Abdullahi Balarabe; Abdulmumin Jibrin; Abdulahi Wamako; Aliyu Patigi; Ahmed Zerewa; Aishatu Ahmed; Aiyedun Olayinka; Alhassan Garba; Aliyu Mandaki; Aliyu Shehu and Aminu Shagari.
Others are: Aminu Suleiman; Aminua Tukur; Andrew Uchendu; Asita Honourable; Bashir Babale; Blessing Usiegbe and Dakuku Peterside.
The appellants based their appeal on six grounds, contending that the trial judge erred in law when, in spite of their objection and the clear lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the suit, he still assumed jurisdiction and determined the matter on the merits.
That, the trial Judge erred in law and lacked jurisdiction when he ordered the appellants to vacate their seats as members of the House.
Also, that the trial judge was biased in the entire proceedings and this affected his perception of the suit and the ultimate decision he gave, resulting in breach of appellants’ right of fair hearing.
Consequently, the lawmakers are praying to the Appeal Court to grant an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the House of Representatives from preventing or interfering in any way with their rights to participate in any of the official, plenary or other business of the House of Representatives.
The lawmakers through their lawyer swore to a 22 paragraphs affidavit in support of the motion for stay.
The applicants averred that they were elected by their constituents to represent them in the House of Representatives on a term of four years respectively which is still running.
That if they cease to so represent their constituents, there will be no representation of the interest of those constituents in the House.
That the process of further amending the1999 constitution is in progress; and if not restrained the respondents may hinder the appellants from participating in the process.
They further averred that the amendment of the constitution requires 2/3 majority; and if they are not permitted to participate in the process, the requisite 2/3 majority may not be attained.
That the entire country will suffer irreparable damage if the provisions of the 1999 constitution which require further amendment are not amended due to the enforcement of the judgment of the court.
The applicants further averred that the National Assembly is currently amending the Electoral Act, 2010, preparatory to the 2015 general elections.
That if the judgment of the court is not stayed and they are prevented from participating in the plenary or amendment process, the process might be truncated because the members might fall short of the simple majority that would ensured such amendments, if some of the appellants would have voted to support the said amendments.
