Defection ruling: Tambuwal, Ihedioha, 37 Reps appeal

Piqued by the judgment of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court in Abuja restraining 37 members of the House of Representatives from participating in debates and motions, the Speaker, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal; his Deputy, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha; and the affected 37 lawmakers have headed to the Court of appeal.
The two Principal Officers of the House and the lawmakers faulted the judgment of Justice Ademola on suit FHC/ABJ/CS/4/14.
He had granted perpetual injunction that members of the House cannot effect leadership change.
The Counsel to the three appellants, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), picked holes in Justice Ademola’s ruling and urged the Court of Appeal, Abuja to set aside the judgment.
The appellants described the judgment as “perverse, not supported by the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.”
They raised seven grounds of appeal, saying more could be added.
They also noted that the judgment “is against the weight of evidence.”
They added 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 three appellants also argued that the Judge erred when he held that the reliefs of the 1st respondent (the Peoples Democratic Party) 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: “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 four 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 lacked 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 Court’s decision in the case of Fawehinmi vs Akilu (1987) 12 SC 136 and Amaechi vs INEC (2008)1 LRECN 1.