Defection: Justice Ademola went beyond briefs – APC Daily Independent Newspapers National leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has observed that Justice Adeniyi Ademola’s judgement of Monday did not order the 37 members of the House who defected to the APC from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to vacate their seats because he was not competent to issue such a ruling, as the issue of whether or not they can defect was not before him. In a statement in Lagos by its Interim National Publicity Secretary, Lai Mohammed, the party echoed the House caucus that the ruling will be appealed because Justice Ademola’s perpetual injunction restraining the concerned lawmakers from participating in motions and debates in the House is unconstitutional and defeats the very purpose for which the members were elected into the House. The APC Caucus in the House of Representatives on Tuesday pooh-poohed the judgement, saying the judge went beyond his brief to express opinions on issues that were not before him. But the PDP members in the House, against all expectations, did not make any issue out of the judgement all through the plenary on Tuesday. The APC national leadership described “Justice Ademola’s unsolicited comments” as “clearly gregarious, unnecessary, superfluous and has no foundation in law or fact, hence should be ignored”. The party called on the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Aloma Mukhtar, to act urgently to sanction Justice Ademola for engaging in mischief that could bring the bench into disrepute. ‘’If this case had been issued a day later than Monday, we would have said the judge was caught in the web of April Fool! Alas, he indeed made the ruling on Monday, hence the need for us to take it very seriously for several reasons. ‘’Firstly, the question whether the House of Representatives members should vacate their seats was not a question before Justice Ademola for determination. “The only question for him to determine was whether the APC members, with their numerical strength at that time, had the right to change the House leadership such as the Majority Leader, Chief Whip and their deputies. So, Justice Ademola had no business commenting on seats being vacated. ‘’Secondly, it is highly unprofessional and unethical for one judge to delve into a matter that is sub judice in another court. A judge should not make comments on matters being litigated in another court. “The question of seats being vacated or otherwise is being heard by Justice Ahmed Mohammed in the Federal High Court in Abuja who, on 29 March 2014, said the issue was still before him and is not ripe for judgment,’’ the party said. APC recalled the alarm it raised in a statement on December 14, 2013 that the PDP was shopping for a pliant judge who will be heavily induced to do its bidding in the case over the defections from the ruling party to the APC. Quoting from the statement, APC said: ‘’We recognise the efforts of the present CJN to sanitise the judiciary since she assumed the mantle of leadership but she should not allow any black leg to reverse the gains that have been recorded on the altar of unmitigated avarice. “This is because if that happens, Nigerians will hold the Judiciary vicariously liable for the catastrophic consequences that may follow.’’ Also addressing a press conference at the end of Tuesday’s plenary of the House, the APC caucus faulted the judgement, accusing the judge of being biased. The APC caucus also gave out copies of an appeal filed at the Court of Appeal to challenge the judgement with a view to upturning it. Faulting the verdict, the caucus alleged that Justice Ademola handed down the judgement out of hatred or personal bias against the defendants, which confirmed the initial fears they had about his partiality on the issues before him. The party caucus expressed dismay that the judge went beyond what was before him by expressing opinion on issues that were not solicited by the plaintiff, which, it said, were feasted upon by the media and uninformed public about the main issue. House Deputy Minority Whip, Samson Osagie, who led the APC caucus at the press conference in Abuja said: “For us in the APC, we were not surprised because in the course of the proceedings the same judge had earlier issued a preservative order as soon as the arguments against his jurisdiction in the case was taken. “This was our first apprehension of the commencement of the case. “Our fears were further confirmed when the judge after granting the reliefs sought in the suit went ahead to render an opinion on issues that were not before him nor solicited by the plaintiffs. “Consequently, a section of the media and indeed the public have been misled by the court ruling into believing that the said judgment has effectively terminated the tenure of office of the affected members. “This is not only untrue, but also a mere obiter dicta expressed by a judge who veered off the course of the case before him in order to do the bidding of the ruling party. “At best the judgment has turned law on its head and cannot stand,” Osagie said. He expressed confidence that the judgement will be upturned at the Court of Appeal. “Our colleagues have taken steps to appeal the judgment and we are confident that justice will prevail.” The judgement, he said, will not be implemented in anyway as the enrolled order is not before the House. “In the meantime, we want to assure members of the public that there is no court judgment before the House, directing any member of the APC to vacate his or her seat. “In any event, Section 68 (2) of the 1999 Constitution makes it clear that satisfactory evidence must be presented to the House before any of the provision of S.68 (1) can become applicable.” Responding to issue of morality on the part of the affected lawmakers, Osagie said they were elected on the basis of law, and were justified by law to take the action they took, and so the question of moral right to still remain in the House does not arise, pointing out that the issue of defection in the House cuts across political parties. “At the moment the APC in the House remains strong and focus on the need to provide necessary checks and balances to the rudderlessness of the ship of state as being piloted by the ruling party in this country today,” he added. Osagie accused the PDP-led government of chasing shadows instead of facing the real challenges of governance presently before it. “At a time when this government is unable to explain to Nigerians the whereabouts of huge missing funds; at a time when profligacy among ministers of this government has reached its crescendo; at a time when scores and thousands have been sent to their untimely death under a scheme purported to be a recruitment sham; at a time when government assets in the power sector have been sold out with Nigerians experiencing more darkness than light; at a time when insecurity and insurgency has almost defied government emergency rule and at a time when mis- governance has taken centre stage while Nigerians have continued to wallow in abject penury, the PDP government has continued to run the country like the private fiefdom of those holding the reins of power,” he noted. The House of Representatives, its Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, and Deputy Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, also on Tuesday filed an appeal against Justice Ademola judgement. In a notice of appeal filed in Abuja by their lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), the three appellants faulted Justice Ademola’s reasoning and urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment. The appellants, who raised seven grounds of appeal, with a promise to add more, argued that the judgment is “perverse, not supported by the reliefs sought by the plaintiff”. They added that the trial judge “erred in law when he granted reliefs not sought by the plaintiff”.
Posted on: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:02:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015