COURT SUSPENDS SARAKI, 53 NASS MEMBERS ON LEGALITY OF THEIR DEFECTION

         

Posted by olatunde

The Abuja Division of the Federal High

Court on Thursday suspended its

decision regarding the status of the

Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and 53

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.