A Federal High Court Abuja on Thursday, adjourned until April 30, a suit seeking the sack of Senate President, Bukola Saraki , Speaker, House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara and 52 other lawmakers.
An
advocacy group, Legal Defence and Assistance Project, (LEDAP) dragged
the lawmakers to court seeking a declaration that they were no longer
members of the National Assembly having defected to other political
parties before the expiration of their tenure.
The defendants
comprise 17 Senators, 37 members of the House of Representatives, the
Independent National Electoral Commission, the Attorney-General of the
Federation and the clerks to both houses.
If found faulty for defecting, Saraki, Dogara and other lawmakers may be removed before the expiration of their tenure.
At
the resumed hearing, when parties were called to make their
submissions, counsel to LEDAP, Mr Jubrin Okutepa, SAN, argued that the
case of whether a politician who moved from one party to another should
retain his /her seat had been decided by the Supreme Court.
Okutepa maintained that the defendants said they defected because there were divisions and crises in their political parties.
He,
however, urged the court to note that the fact of the defection had
been admitted and what remained was for the court to determine if the
defection was justified inline with decisions of the Supreme Court.
“There
is nothing before this court to show that the respective parties upon
which the 2nd to 55th defendants were elected before they jumped ship to
other political parties, were infested with the virus of division known
to law for them to retain their seats at the National Assembly.”
On
the defendants’ claim that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to
institute the suit, Okutepa held that LEDAP was incorporated to promote
constitutionality and rule of law and was therefore a juristic person
and had the locus to file the motion.
For his part, Mr Mahmud
Magaji, (SAN) counsel to Saraki and the other senators, argued that
LEDAP was not part of the persons referred to in Section 40 of the 1999
Constitution and so, they lacked the locus standi to file the suit.
“They
are not a registered political party so they are not protected by the
section and there is nothing before the court to show otherwise.
”
It is also clear that they did not sponsor anyone for any election and
they have not exhibited their membership card of any political party or
evidence of voter card.”
He maintained that the plaintiffs were
only advocates of public interest rights and had not placed sufficient
evidence before the court to enable the court entertain the matter.
Magaji
further submitted that the issue of division was still lingering in the
All Progressives Congress, (APC)both at the state and national level as
was recently displayed in Rivers.
Magaji urged the court to decline jurisdiction adding that the plaintiffs had not disclosed any reasonable cause of action.
Mr
Josh Amupitan, SAN, counsel to Dogara and other members of the house of
representatives, for his part, submitted that the plaintiff had failed
to prove its case.
He argued that according to Section 68(2) of
the constitution which the plaintiff premised its case on, it was only
the Senate President and the Speaker that could declare seats at the
National Assembly vacant.
He added that where powers had been
given an institution, the only reason one could involve the court was
where such an institution had been asked to exercise the powers but
refused to.
He said that there was nothing placed before the
court to show that the plaintiff had written to the senate president and
the speaker asking them to declare the said seats vacant and they
declined.
Speaking on the issue of defection, Amupitan argued
that the plaintiff had placed nothing before the court to prove that the
defendants actually defected.
“The story is that they defected
on the floor of the house, but the votes and proceedings of the senate
and the house of representatives where the defection took place is not
before the court to prove this.”
Amupitan further submitted that
the powers to monitor political parties or determine their activities
was statutory vested on the Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC) and not any non governmental organization as clearly stated in
the Electoral Act.
” If the court allows this type of proceedings
under public interest litigation, the court will be over reaching the
institutions vested with such responsibilities and the court will be
building a litigation industry which we can never recover from,” he
submitted.
The trial judge, Justice Okon Abang stopped the proceedings at this point since it had been on for over four hours.
The
judge adjourned the matter until April 30 for counsel to conclude
arguments and assured that justice will be served and timely too since
it was a constitutional matter of national importance.
LEDAP had
in a suit filed on Sept. 14, 2018, prayed the court for an
interpretation of Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution.
This
was with regards as to whether any member of the National Assembly who
resigns from the political party that sponsored his election before the
expiration of the term for which he was elected, automatically loses his
seat in the national assembly.
The group was also seeking a
declaration that the lawmakers were no longer entitled to receive any
remunerations due to a member of the National Assembly and that any of
such remunerations after their date of defection be refunded to the
Federal Government.
LEDAP in the suit, also prayed the presiding members of the National Assembly to declare vacant, the seats of the defectors.
Source:- Independentng
Share your thoughts