37 defected lawmakers file stay of execution suit

The 37 members of House of Representatives who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party to All Progressives Congress have filed a stay of execution suit at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja had while ruling on the suit filed by the PDP granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defected 37 lawmakers from participating in debates and motions in the House.
Ademola also held that since they had dumped the platform on which they became lawmakers, they had no business still retaining their seats in the House.
To guide against the execution of this ruling, 18 of the affected lawmakers have jointly filed an appeal against the entire decision of the trial court.
They are: Abdullahi Balarabe; Abdulmumin Jibrin; Abdulahi Wamako; Aliyu Patigi; Ahmed Zerewa; Aishatu Ahmed; Aiyedun Olayinka; Alhassan Garba; Aliyu Mandaki; Aliyu Shehu and Aminu Shagari.
Others are: Aminu Suleiman; Aminua Tukur; Andrew Uchendu; Asita Honourable; Bashir Babale; Blessing Usiegbe and Dakuku Peterside.
The appellants’ appeal is anchored on six grounds.
They contended that the trial judge erred in law when, in spite of their objection and the clear lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the suit, he still assumed jurisdiction and determined the matter on the merits.
The trial judge, they argued, erred in law and lacked jurisdiction when he ordered the appellants to vacate their seats as members of the House.
Also, the lawmakers contended that the trial judge was biased in the entire proceedings and this affected his perception of the suit and the ultimate decision he gave, resulting in breach of appellants’ right of fair hearing.
Therefore, the lawmakers are asking for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the House of Representatives from preventing or interfering in any way with their rights to participate in any of the official, plenary or other business of the House of Representatives.
In a 22-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion for stay, the applicants averred that they were elected by their constituents to represent them in the House of Representatives on a term of four years respectively which is still running.
That if they cease to so represent their constituents, there will be no representation of the interest of those constituents in the House.
That the process of further amending the1999 constitution is in progress and if not restrained, the respondents may hinder the appellants from participating in the process.
They further averred that the amendment of the constitution requires two-third majority, and if they are not permitted to participate in the process, the requisite majority may not be attained.
That the entire country will suffer irreparable damage if the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which require further amendment, are not amended due to the enforcement of the judgment of the court.
The applicants further averred that the National Assembly is currently amending the Electoral Act, 2010, preparatory to the 2015 general elections.
That if the judgment of the court is not stayed and they are prevented from participating in the plenary or amendment process, the process might be truncated because the members might fall short of the simple majority that would ensured such amendments.