May 27, 2019 ADVERTISE CONTACT US PRIVACY POLICY     

NEWS  |  CELEBRITIES  | JOKES  |  STORIES  | RELATIONSHIP  | GOSSIP  | FASHION  |  WORLD

PROMOTE MUSIC | ADVERTISE | SUBMIT FREEBEAT

Search Anything Below

Saraki, 51 NASS Members “Arrest” Court Judgment On Legality Of Their Defection

Evelyn Okakwu and Halimah Yahaya

The Abuja Division of the
Federal High Court on Thursday suspended its decision regarding the
status of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and 51 other lawmakers
who defected from their various parties ahead of the 2019 general
elections.

The court’s decision followed an application by Mr
Saraki and the affected lawmakers for them to be heard before the court
reaches a decision on the matter.

A group, Legal Defence and
Assistance Project (LEDAP), had taken Mr Saraki and 51 other National
Assembly members to court over their defection from the parties on which
platform they were elected to the National Assembly.

The applicants asked the court to determine whether the respondents can retain their seats after their defection.

LEDAP
in the suit filed on September 14 asked the court to order that the
members of the National Assembly who defected should vacate their seats.

In
July 2018, 37 members of the House of Representatives defected from the
All Progressives Congress (APC). About 32 of them joined the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP), four joined the African Democratic Congress
(ADC) while one did not announce his new party at the time.

On the same day, 14 APC senators defected to the PDP.

About a week after the senators’ defection, Mr Saraki himself announced his decision to quit the APC for the PDP.

The
defections led to the suit by LEDAP, which also included such
defendants as the Attorney-General of the Federation, Independent
National Electoral Commission, the Deputy Senate President, Ike
Ekweremadu; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu
Dogara.

The court had slated Thursday for its verdict on the
matter. But when the case was called, the lawyer representing the
National Assembly members, Mahmoud Magaji, asked the court to allow them
to respond to the arguments during the hearing.

According to Mr Magaji, his clients only became aware of the matter after the last adjourned date.

Mr
Magaji said they had filed a written response to the issues raised by
the applicants and that they were seeking the indulgence of the court to
respond in open court.

He cited section 6 (6) of the
Constitution to show that the court has powers to give its verdicts but
added that the court also has a responsibility to entertain all
arguments relevant to the proposed judgement.

The section dealing
with the powers of the court, cited by Mr Magaji states thus: “The
judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of
this section -shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
this constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of
law.”

Mr Magaji said his clients were challenging the powers of
the applicants to bring their request. He said his clients were
consequently questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the
matter since the applicants allegedly lack ‘locus standi’.

The lawyer added that the issue of jurisdiction was an important matter that would have an adverse effect on the judgement.

“It
is trite law that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time:
even for the first time in Supreme Court on the day of judgement,” said
Mr Magaji.

According to the senior lawyer, “the rules guiding the
court have made it necessary for us to be heard in the given
circumstance.”

Mr Magaji urged the court to be judicious in its application of discretion.

In
a reaction, the judge, Okon Abang, said the situation presented by the
respondents’ application would have been prevented if they had presented
a counsel to argue their matter, timeously.

In a further
reaction, Mr Magaji said the issue of jurisdiction was so radical that
any lawyer present in court could draw the attention of the court to it,
without being a counsel in the instant case.

In a reaction, the
applicant’s lawyer, Ede Uko, said the submissions of the defence counsel
is primarily aimed at “arresting the judgement.”

“The law is trite that judgment cannot be arrested,” Mr Uko said.

The
lawyer who works in the chamber of another senior lawyer, Jibrin
Okutepa, cited two Supreme Court judgments from 2006 and 2013.

According
to Mr Uko, the apex court had decided in both judgements that “antics
employed by parties shall not be allowed to stop an already prepared
judgment.”

Mr Uko submitted that the conduct of the respondents was “not worthy of any sympathy from the court.”

“What they are seeking can be likened to the actions of a drowning man,” Mr Uko said.

The
lawyer said the attempts by the respondents to fish out defects in the
processes before the court, rather than tender their argument, was proof
of his submission “that the respondents were desperate to prevent the
judgement, after failing to formally present their arguments.”

“They
had all the chances. They conceded to the submissions of the plaintiff.
Now they are coming with technical issues of jurisdiction and locus
standi,” Mr Uko said.

“If they wanted the court to hear them,
they would have respected the court and come earlier. The only option
they have is to go on appeal, whichever angle they view the judgement.
They cannot arrest the judgment of this honourable court,” Mr Uko added.

After listening to the arguments by counsel, Mr Abang adjourned till 11 a.m. on Friday to hear the arguments of the respondents.

Mr
Abang condemned the senators for failing to appear and respond to
issues on time but added that it was necessary to grant their
application in the interest of justice.

“The actions of the
defendants (amounts to) slapping the court in the face by refusing to
defend the proceedings; their effort to arrest the judgment is unheard
of in law.

“It is the fundamental rights for the defendants to be
heard. They cannot be driven away from the seat of Justice. For the
court to deliver judgment it will be a wrong exercise of the court.

“Notwithstanding
the disrespectful conduct of the lawmakers; though the defendants
snubbed the court and waived their rights; they have woken up from their
slumber and should be accommodated by the court,” Mr Abang ruled.

The judge adjourned the matter to Friday when he will allow the application by Mr Saraki and the other lawmakers to be heard.

Source:- Premiumtimesng

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO COMMENT>>>

Promote Your Music, Video, & Freebeats Here On Naijafinix

Call Us On:- +2348133393353 OR
WhatsApp Us Now:- CLICK HERE TO CHAT
SPONSORED POST LINKS

TRENDING SONGS OF THE WEEK

SWIPE LEFT TO VIEW MORE SONGS >>>

DOWNLOAD ALSO

🎵 Want Latest Nigerian Songs? Click HERE

Comment Below:-
Enter Name Below (Optional)


Enter Comment Below:-


"Rinret B. Emmanuel"

Music

Simply Call:- 08133393353


Master KG Ft Zanda Zakuza – "Skeleton Move"

Music

DOWNLOAD AUDIO HERE


© 2017-2018 Naijafinix. All Rights Reserved.

About us|Content Remova|Privacy Policy|Contact us

Naijafinix is not responsible for the content of external sites.