Yusuf Dogara, House of Reps speaker and Bukola Saraki, Senate President
The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, on Thursday, accused the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Yakubu Dogara, and 52 other lawmakers of engaging in misconduct by arresting judgment on a suit that is seeking to declare their seats vacant for defecting from political parties that brought them to power.
The court, in a ruling that was delivered by Justice Okon Abang, decried what it termed as “frustrating conduct” of the lawmaker who it said disrespected its authority by approaching it to suspend an already prepared judgement.
The judgment was sequel to
a suit that was lodged before the court on September 14, 2018, by a non governmental organization under the aegis of Legal Defence and Assistance Project, LEDAP.
The Plaintiff had through its lawyer, Mr. Chino Obiagwu, SAN, prayed the court to declare the seat of 54 lawmakers, including that of Saraki and Dogara, vacant in accordance with Section 68 of the 1999 Constitution, following their defection from the political party that sponsored them.
The outcome of the suit will affect lawmakers within the fold of both the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.
Those the Plaintiff is asking the court to void their continued stay at the National Assembly, included the former Minority Leader of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, Senators Dino Melaye, Rabiu Kankwaso, Lanre Tejuoso, Shaaba Lafiagi, Rafiu Ibrahim, Barnabas Gemade, Abdulazeez Nyako, Monsurat Sunmonu, Usman Nafada, Suleiman Hunkuyi, Ibrahim Danbaba, Ubale Shittu, lsah Misau, Suleiman Nafif.
Hon. Zakari Mohammed, Hon. Aminu Shagari, Hon Ooker-Jev, Hon. Rufai Chanchangi, Hon. Abdulsamad Dasuki, Hon. Sani Zoro, Hon. Benjamin Okolo, Hon. Bode Ayorinde, Hon. Sani Rank, Hon. Dickson Tarkighir, among others.
Contending that the Defendants had no business at the National Assembly haven dumped the political party on which they were elected into office contrary to section 68 of the Constitution, the Plaintiff, applied for an order of mandamus to compel the Deputy Senate President and his counterpart at the House of Reps, to declare their seats vacant to allow the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to conduct bye-elections to fill the positions.
It further prayed the court to order the Defendants to refund all salaries and emoluments they received after their defection.
Equally cited as Defendants in the matter were INEC, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Deputy Senate President and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Reps.
Meantime, shortly after the matter was called up for judgment, Saraki and his co-defendants, through their lawyer, Mr. Mahmud Magaji, SAN, insisted they were not aware that the suit was pending against them.
Magaji told the court that after Saraki became aware of the suit, he wrote a letter to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court to be allowed access to all the processes that were filed in respect of the matter.
“On perusing through the file, the Registrar said we have to pay a penalty which was calculated at N91, 000.00.
“We made the payment via Fidelity account that was given to us and we quickly filed a motion of conditional appearance. We also filed another motion challenging the locus-standi of the Plaintiff and jurisdiction of this court to even entertain the suit.
“The motions have been served on the Plaintiffs and it is in the court’s file”, Magaji submitted.
Placing reliance on section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution, Magaji, SAN, argued that the court had powers to temporarily suspend the judgment to consider the pending applications.
“It is trite that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. It can be raised orally even on the day of judgment, including at the Supreme Court.
“It is in this regard that we seek the indulgence of your lordship to admit and allow us to our processes”.
He argued that the suit was grossly defective since the name of a late lawmaker was still retained as the 41st Defendant.
“What we are saying is that the court should tarry awhile and hear the other side now that certain facts are now available to the court”.
However, counsel to the Plaintiff, Mr. Ede Uko, urged the court to strike out the applications and proceed with the judgment.
“My lord one thing is pointed out this morning and it is the bid by the Defendants to arrest the judgment of this court. I submit that the application of the Defendants is seeking to arrest the judgment.
“The conduct of the Defendants in this case is not worthy of any sympathetic consideration.
“They were duly served with processes of this court. They briefed a counsel who appeared in the matter in the last two adjournments.
“That counsel sought and obtained leave of the to court to file processes. He did not come again to file anything.
“What the Defendants are doing in this case is like a drowning man that is seeking to hold on to an imaginary straw to keep afloat.
“They were served with the processes and they had all the time to respond but they conceded their right to be heard. Today they are coming cunningly and in further disrespect to the court and processes served on them.
“The defendants can raise their perceived issue of jurisdiction before the Court of Appeal.
“We urge the court to discountenance the application as incompetent, provocative and unmeritorious. It is targeted to irritate and annoy this court and the Plaintiff. It constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process”, he added.
In his ruling, Justice Abang noted that records of the court indicated that all the Defendants were duly served with the legal processes through substituted means.
The court further noted that sequel to the service, one Peter Udeogu announced his appearance for Saraki in the matter, though none of the other Defendants sent legal representatives.
Justice Abang decried that the affected lawmakers failed to consider the implication of their failure to respond to the suit, saying “they treated this court with disdain and levity”.
“Having been duly satisfied that the court had given them an opportunity to be heard, I then allowed the Plaintiff to argue his case after which the court adjourned the case till today (Thursday) for judgment”.
Justice Abang berated Saraki and his colleagues who he said “hurriedly briefed another lawyer to file various processes with the aim of arresting the reserved judgement which I consider to be of national importance”.
According to him, “conduct of the Defendants amounted to slapping the court in the face”.
Nevertheless, the court said it would in the interest of justice and fair hearing, “tarry awhile”, to enable the Defendants to respond to the suit if they so wish.
It held that proceeding with the prepared judgment in the face of the fresh development in the case would amount to breach of fundamental rights of the lawmakers.
“For the court to go ahead and deliver the judgment that is ready will amount to wrong exercise of discretion.
“Notwithstanding the disrespectful conduct of the distinguished lawmakers, what is playing out today can be summarized in the latin maxim, ‘Audi alteram partem’, which is to allow the other party to be heard.
“This has nothing to do with the merit of the case. The Defendants should be heard before the judgement.
“The Defendants have prayed for enlargement of time to file their processes.
“I will reluctantly suspend the reserved judgement to enable them to file their processes”, Justice Abang held.
Besides, he stressed that owing to the seriousness of the case, the judgement must be delivered before the expiration of the tenure of the lawmakers.
The matter was subsequently adjourned till Friday for hearing.
Specifically, the Plaintiff, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/996/2018, is seeking: “A declaration that by virtue of Section 68 (I) (g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), any member of the National Assembly who resigns from the political party that sponsored his election into the National Assembly, before the expiration of the term for which he was elected, automatically loses his seat in the Assembly, unless saved by the exception under that section.
“A declaration that the 1st to 52nd defendants are no longer members of the National Assembly and as such are no longer entitled to receive remunerations due to a member of the National Assembly and that any or such remunerations received by the 1st to 52nd defendants after the date of defection must be refunded to the Federal Government.
“A declaration that by virtue of the provisions of Section 57 of the Constitution and Section 8 (2) (d) of the Legislative Houses (Powers And Privileges) Act 2018, it is unconstitutional and a punishable offence for the 1st to 52nd defendants to continue sitting as Senators and Honorable members of the National Assembly after defecting from the parties that sponsored their elections into the National Assembly.
“A declaration that effective from the date of defection, any debate or motion before the National Assembly that any of the 151 to 52nd defendants participates in or votes on, is null and void.
“An order of mandamus, compelling the Deputy Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to declare the seats of 1st to 52nd defendants in their respective chambers vacant.
Likewise, “An order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct bye-elections in the federal constituencies and senatorial zones of the defendants within the time frame allowed under the Electoral Act”.
The Plaintiff asked the court to determine whether by virtue of Section 68 (I) (g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), any member of the National Assembly who defected from the party that sponsored his election into the National Assembly, before the expiration of the term for which he was elected would not automatically lose his seat in the Assembly, unless saved by the exception under that section?
Other questions posed before the court included, “Whether by virtue of section 68(2) of the Constitution, the Deputy Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are not bound by duty to declare the seats of the 1st to 52nd defendant s in the Senate and the House of Representatives as the case may be, vacant?
“Whether by virtue of the provisions of Section 57 of the Constitution, it is not an offence for the 1st to 52nd defendants to continue sitting and voting in the National Assembly, after resigning from the party that sponsored their elections into the National Assembly?
“Whether the Independent National Electoral Commission is under a legal obligation to conduct bye-elections in the senatorial zones and the federal constituencies of the defendants as the case may be, within the time frame provided under the electoral Act?”
