“Having perused the arguments of counsel and the constitutional provisions, it is clear and unambiguous that the defendants were sponsored by the PDP and won the election on its platform. It is also the court’s opinion that their tenure has not expired and there is no division in the PDP.
“The defendants are, therefore, not competent to vote or contribute to any proceedings in the House of Representatives. An order of perpetual injunction is, hereby, ordered, restraining them from altering or attempting to change the leadership of the House of Representatives”.
With these rulings, Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, told the 37 members of the House of Representatives that defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), that they have no business still being in the House.
Justice Ademola, was ruling on the suit filed by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), that the court should restrain members of the House of Representatives from effecting leadership change.
The House minority leader, Femi Gbajabiamila, had threatened that the APC would effect leadership change following the defection of 37 members from the PDP to the APC in late 2013.
Justice Ademola, however said the defected lawmakers can neither participate nor sponsor any motion that will lead to leadership change.
He held that the Originating Summons is justiceable and hence, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
On the abuse of court process cited by the defendants, Justice Ademola held that it was misconceived and therefore 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.
Justice Ademola held that the 12th to 53rd defendants cannot effect change in the leadership of the House, citing the provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution.
The Judge also granted an order restraining the defendants from altering, tampering or moving towards effecting change in the leadership of the house.
The PDP leadership had sued the House of Representatives, listing 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).
Also, the defectors were listed as the 12th to 53rd defendants.
The plaintiff in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2/2014 raised two questions for the court’s determination and sought 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 lawmakers, 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 lawmakers) can lawfully alter the composition or constitution of the House leadership.
The defendants in their eighteen paragraphed counter-affidavit deposed to by one Mr. Mike Msenge, told the court that from prolonged practice of the House of Reps (1st defendant), the political party with majority of members in the House forms its core leadership.
They argued that with the defection of the 12th—53rd defendants from the plaintiff to the APC on December 18, 2013, the plaintiff has lost its majority status, which has switched to the APC.
The counsel to the PDP hailed the judgement, saying “As far as i am concerned, it is a very sound and an analytical judgment and I think one should thank God that this judgment will further consolidate the political stability of this country particularly, the legislative Houses.
“If you want to go away, don’t try to go away and you still maintain that seats. You rather stay or go.
Meanwhile, the defectors have vowed to appeal the judgment. The counsel to the defendants, Mahmud Magaji, said he has the mandate of his clients, the defectors to challenge the court decision.
He said, “You will recall that the action was brought pursuant to Section 68 (12) and that some members of House of Representatives cannot participate in the internal proceedings of the House having carpet-crossed to APC.
“It is our submission that is not the position of the law. My clients have given me a clear mandate to challenge the outcome of whatever decision of the Honourable Court is and that we have made clear to the Honourable Court”.
