Justice Yetunde Pinheiro of the Lagos State High Court has reserved judgement in the suit filed by the reinstated Speaker of the House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, who is challenging the legality of the January 13, 2025 proceeding that led to his initial removal.
At the proceedings on Monday, the judge also heard several preliminary objections by various counsel representing the defendants.
The court said the date to deliver the judgement and rulings will be communicated to parties in due course.
Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN) who represented Mr. Obasa urged the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The claimant’s counsel argues that the House was on recess when 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.
Meanwhile, 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 lead counsel representing the 3rd to the 35th defendants, Olu Daramola (SAN) in his arguments said the removal of the speaker is an internal affair of the House which the courts cannot interfere in.
He added that the proceedings of January 13 was valid, having been held in the Assembly and the decision taken to remove the speaker was taken by more than the constitutional requirement of a two-third majority of the members.
But the lead counsel representing the 36th to the 40th defendants, who are in support of the claimant’s action, 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, Mr. Falana argues that the speaker’s action should be dismissed by the Court as it was instituted without a pre-action notice known to law issued on the House of Assembly.
He contended that the House has the right to appoint and remove the speaker and other principal officers of the House, without the court’s interference.
He added that by virtue of his reelection as speaker, and Mojisola Meranda being restored to her previous position of Deputy Speaker on March 3, this 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 reelected and yet, is still suing the House of Assembly.
But responding, the claimant’s counsel says there are live issues still remaining in the matter, including whether the proceedings of January 13 was constitutional, which he says the mere return of the speaker have 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.”
