INSURGENCY IN NIGERIAN POLITICE {APC/PDP}. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, his deputy, Emeka Ihedioha and 37 lawmakers that defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) have filed an appeal against the judgement of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court in Abuja. Justice Ademola had on Monday in a ruling on suit FHC/ABJ/ CS/4/14 filed by the leadership of the ruling PDP, granted a perpetual injunction, restraining the Lower Chamber lawmakers from effecting leadership change. The trial Judge also held that the 37 lawmakers that defected from the PDP to the All Progressives Congress (APC) should seize from participating in debates and motions in the House. The leadership of PDP had approached the court to restrain members of the House of Reps from effecting leadership change, following defection of 37 PDP members to APC that then conferred on the APC, majority status. But, the appellants – Tambuwal, Ihedioha and 37 lawmakers, through their counsel, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), faulted Justice Ademolas ruling and urged the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja to set aside the judgment. They described the judgment as “perverse, not supported by the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.”, raised seven grounds of appeal, saying more could be added. Also, the appellants argued that the judgment “is against the weight of evidence.”, noting that Justice Ademola, erred “when he granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and “went further to hold that the 1st to 39th respondents ought to have resigned their seats as members of the 1st appellant. The appellants further argued that the Judge erred when he held that the reliefs of the 1st respondent (PDP) were justiceable and proceeded to grant the reliefs sought without considering the provision of Section 30 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap L12 Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The section quoted provides that “neither the President nor the Speaker as the case may be, of a legislative house shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in him by or under this Act or the standing orders of the Constitution.” Therefore, they are of the view that trial judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the suit, bothering on the internal affairs of the House of Representatives, which is protected under Section 60 of the Constitution. The appellants referred to suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/621/2013 between Senator Bello Hayato Gwazo and 79 others vs Alhaji Bamaga Tukur and 4 others and argued that the parties and reliefs sought were similar with that on which the judge gave judgment. In the same vein, they contended that the PDP lack the locus standi to institute the case as the reliefs sought were not supported by any legal evidence and that the judge ignored the Supreme Courts decision in the case of Fawehinmi vs Akilu (1987) 12 SC 136, Amaechi vs INEC (2008)1 LRECN 1.
Posted on: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:08:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015