37 defected lawmakers: We almost took judgment for April fool —APC

•Tambuwal, others head for court
THE opposition All Progressives Congress (APC), on Tuesday, said it almost took the court judgment against the 37 federal  lawmakers that defected to its fold from Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for April Fool’s joke, save for same coming a day before.

In a statement issued in Lagos by its spokesperson, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, on Tuesday, the party called Justice Adeniyi Ademola’s quitting directive to the affected members of the House of Representatives as an exercise in judicial rascality.

It added that the judge could not have asked the lawmakers to vacate their seats, because he was not competent to issue such a ruling, as the issue before him was not whether they could defect or not.

The party said it would appeal the judgment, while asking the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) to sanction the judge for alleged unprofessional conduct.

It added that Justice Ademola’s perpetual injunction restraining the concerned lawmakers from participating in motions and debates in the House was unconstitutional and defeated the purpose for which the members were elected into the House.

It said Justice Ademola’s alleged unsolicited comments were “clearly gregarious, unnecessary, superfluous and has no foundation in law or fact, hence should be ignored.”

According to the party, “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.”

“Firstly, the question whether the House of Representatives members should vacate their seats or not could not arise. 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. 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 March 29, 2014, said the issue was still live before him and not ripe for judgment.”

Rivers PDP asks INEC to conduct fresh election
Rivers State chapter of PDP has asked the chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Attahiru Jega, to immediately begin the process of  conducting election to replace the members of the House of Representatives whose  seats were declared vacant by the court on Monday.

 At the same time, the state chairman of the party, Mr Felix Obuah, extended the olive branch to the affected federal lawmakers, asking them to return to the PDP fold.

 Reacting to the judgment, Obuah, in a statement issued from his media office in Port Harcourt, on Tuesday, enjoined INEC to begin the process of electing replacements for the embattled lawmakers.

“This is a point of law and (it) is unambiguously clear. So it’s expected that as lawmakers, they should be the first to uphold court decisions based on point of law,” he said.  

Tambuwal, others head for court
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives, its Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal and the Deputy Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, have appealed against Monday’s judgment by Justice Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, restraining some defecting members of the House from altering the current composition of its leadership.

In a notice of appeal filed in Abuja, on Tuesday, by their lawyer, Mahmud Magaji, the three appellants faulted Justice Ademola’s reasoning and urged the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to set aside the judgment.

The judgment was in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/4/14, filed by PDP against the House of Representatives, its principal officers and members, who defected from PDP to the opposition APC.

The appellants, who raised seven grounds of appeal, with a promise to add more, argued that the judgment was “perverse and not supported by the reliefs sought by the plaintiff,” adding that the trial judge “erred in law when he granted reliefs not sought by the plaintiff.”

The appellants contended that the judgment was against the weight of evidence, adding that the judge erred “when he granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and went further to hold that the first to 39th respondents ought to have resigned their seats as members of the first appellant.”

They  argued that the judge erred when he held that the reliefs of the first respondent (PDP) were justiciable 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 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.”

The appellants argued that the trial judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the suit, which was predicated on the internal affairs of the House of Representatives, while further arguing that the reliefs sought by the PDP were not justiciable, yet the trial judge proceeded to grant the reliefs.

They contended that the PDP lacked the locus standi to institute the case because it was not predicated on any recognised legal interest; while the reliefs sought were not supported by any legal evidence.

They held that that the judge failed to reckon with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Fawehinmi vs Akilu (1987) 12 SC 136, Amaechi vs INEC (2008)1 LRECN 1.

The appellants faulted the trial judge for holding that the suit was rightly commenced with originating summons, without regard to the provision of Order Three Rule Six of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009.

They also argued that the judge was wrong to  have held that the claims of the PDP did not amount to an abuse of court process when there were similar cases involving the same parties still pending before the court.

Also, the APC Caucus in the House of Representatives accused Justice Ademola for doing the bidding of PDP in the suit filed against 37 of its members.

Briefing newsmen on behalf of APC caucus in the House, the minority whip, Honourable Samson Osagie, maintained that “we shall not give in to the attempt of some of our PDP colleagues in collusion with a certain judge to turn facts and law on its head to achieve some sinister ends.”

He added that, the judgement was an attempt by the court to meddle in the internal affairs of the parliament, adding that this was not the import of the doctrine of judicial review.

“As we speak, our colleagues have appealed the vexatious ruling and we hope to get justice soon. We believe the House of Representatives will take due notice of the appeal in this case,” he said.

According to him, “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 at the commencement of the case.”

He added that “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.”

Osagie lamented that a section of the media and, indeed, the public had been misled by the court ruling into believing that the said judgment had 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,” he said.

How judgment stalls Tambuwal’s defection to APC
The judgment, it was gathered, stalled the planned defection of Honourable Tambuwal to APC.

This came just as the House Leader, Honourable Mulikat Adeola-Akande, convened an emergency PDP caucus meeting, to review the judgment.

Nigerian Tribune gathered that the Speaker had been under intense pressure from his home state, Sokoto and lawmakers from his state, who had also defected alongside others.

Lawmakers from Sokoto who were affected by the suit included Kabiru Marafa Achida, Aminu Shagari, Isa Salihu Bashir, Abdullahi Moh’d Wammako, Sa’adu Nabunkari, Aliyu Shehu, Shuaibu Gobir, Musa Sarkin’adar and Abdullahi Balarabe Salake.

Sources in the House told the Nigerian Tribune that the Speaker had already perfected plan to defect to the APC alongside others, but the court judgment stalled the move.

One of the sources informed the Nigerian Tribune that Governor Aliyu Wamakko of Sokoto was not happy with the Speaker for his continuous stay in PDP.

The PDP caucus meeting, the Nigerian Tribune learnt, was held at Hearing Room 028 of the House of Representatives, where members extensively deliberated on the outcome of the judgment.

Why we’ve not announced our membership figure –APC
As APC prepares to hold its scheduled congresses and national convention to elect party officers from ward to national levels, Nigerians may still have to wait a little longer to know the total membership of the party as recorded in the last membership registration exercise it undertook in February.

The party had conducted its membership registration exercise across the country between late January and early February, but except Rivers and Ekiti states, other state chapters, as well as the party’s headquarters were yet to release their membership lists.

The PDP had since denounced the figures released by state chapters of APC in Rivers (100,000 non-indigenes) and Ekiti (226,527), saying that they were cooked to look as if the party enjoyed any measure of support.

The APC, according to its interim national publicity secretary, Alhaji Mohammed, had scheduled to hold its ward, local government and state congresses on April 5, 12 and 23 respectively, while its national convention would be held on May 24, in Abuja.

According to findings, the party was yet to come out with its membership figures nationwide because it considered the exercise as ongoing, as more people were still showing interest to register with it after the close of the exercise in February.

The source, who spoke with the Nigerian Tribune on condition of anonymity, said the party expected that more politicians were still interested to cross over to its platform, especially from the ruling PDP.

The source pointed out that some National Assembly members had shown interest in APC and were expected to register with the party together with their followers.

According to him, that had accounted for why the party could not close its membership register and announce any final figure now.