By Ebunoluwa Sessou
LAGOS — A Lagos State High Court has reserved judgment in the suit by the reinstated speaker of the House of Assembly, Mr Mudashiru Obasa, who is challenging the legality of the January 13, 2025, proceeding that led to his initial removal.
Trial judge, Justice Yetunde Pinheiro, who heard several preliminary objections by counsel representing the defendants, said the date for judgment and rulings would be communicated to parties in due course.
Recall that, President Bola Tinubu met the lawmakers, including Obasa at the State House last week and directed that he should work peacefully with his colleagues.
At the resumed hearing of the case, yesterday, members of the Assembly were surprised to learn that the reinstated Speaker was still pursuing legal action against the institution he presides over.
Prof. Joshua Olatoke, SAN, counsel to the claimant, Mr Obasa, urged the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the matter.
He argued that the Assembly was in recess at the time the lawmakers convened illegally on January 13, without duly informing either the Speaker or the Majority Leader, who have the powers to reconvene any session during recess.
But, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, whose legal authority to represent the House of Assembly was earlier affirmed by the court, opposed the suit brought by way of originating summons.
He said the later proceedings of March 3, which saw the reelection of Mr Obasa as speaker had overtaken the earlier proceedings.
One of the counsels, representing the 3rd to the 35th defendants, Olu Daramola, SAN, said the removal of the speaker was an internal affair of the House, which the court cannot interfere in.
He added that the proceedings of January 13, were valid, having been held in the Assembly and that the decision taken to remove the speaker was taken by more than the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority of the members.
But, counsel to the 36th to the 40th defendants, who are in support of the claimant’s action, Mr Clement Onwuenwunor, SAN, said the January 13, sitting was done in clear violation of the Rules Governing the House of Assembly, which empowers the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the case.
In the preliminary objections of the first defendant, Falana argued that the Speaker’s action should be dismissed by the court as it was instituted without a pre-action notice known to law issued by the House of Assembly.
He added that by virtue of his reinstatement as speaker, and Mojisola Meranda being restored to her previous position of Deputy Speaker on March 3, the case has become academic.
The counsel representing Mojisola Meranda, as well as the 33 lawmakers also argued similar motions for the suit to be dismissed, saying it was an abuse of judicial processes as the Speaker agreed to be reinstated and yet, was still suing the House of Assembly.
But responding, the claimant’s counsel said live issues were remaining in the matter, including whether the proceedings of January 13, were constitutional, which the mere return of the speaker has not resolved, and which needs the court to fully determine.
“We contend with the proceedings of January 13, as it deals with the constitutionality of that plenary. We also seek that the court nullifies that proceedings because it wasn’t constitutional”, he said.
The post Speakership tussle: Court reserves judgment on Obasa’s suit appeared first on Vanguard News.
