Judiciary symbol
March 17, 2025
Justice Yetunde Pinheiro of the Ikeja High Court has reserved judgment in the suit filed by the reinstated speaker of the House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa.
Obasa is challenging the legality of his initial removal as speaker.
Pinheiro reserved the judgment after hearing not less than 15 preliminary applications from the respondents.
The judge said that the date to deliver the judgment would be communicated to the parties in due course.
The respondents in the suit are some members of the state assembly and former speaker, Mojisola Meranda.
Obasa is challenging the allegations that led to his initial removal as speaker, including fraud, high-handedness, abuse of office, and gross misconduct.
At the commencement of hearing on Monday, Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN) who represented Obasa, urged the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the matter.
He argued that the house was on recess at the time the lawmakers convened on Jan. 13 without properly notifying either the speaker or the majority leader, who had the authority to reconvene any session during the recess.
While arguing whether the proceedings of Jan. 13 was constitutional, he said, “The mere return of the speaker have not been resolved, we need the court to fully determine that.
“We contend the proceedings of Jan. 13 as it deals with the constitutionality of that plenary.
“We also seek that the court nullifies that proceedings because it was not constitutional”.
Mr Femi Falana, (SAN) whose legal authority to represent the state assembly was earlier affirmed by the court, opposed the suit brought by way of originating summons.
Falana argued that the proceedings of March 3, which saw the re-election of Obasa as speaker, had overtaken the earlier proceedings.
In the preliminary objections of the first respondent, Falana, argued that the speaker’s action should be dismissed by the court.
He said it was instituted without a pre-action notice known to law.
The learned silk also contended that the house had the right to appoint and remove the speaker and other principal officers of the house without court’s interference.
“By virtue of Obasa’s re-election as speaker, and Meranda been restored to her previous position as the deputy speaker, this case has become academic,” he added.
Counsel representing the third to the 35th respondents, Mr Olu Daramola (SAN), also argued that the removal of the speaker was an internal affair of the house, which the courts should not interfere in.
Daramola added that the proceedings of Jan. 13 were valid, having been held in the assembly.
He said that the decision to remove the speaker was made by more than the constitutional requirement of a two-third majority of the members.
Mr Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), the counsel representing the 36th to the 40th respondents, said the Jan. 13 sitting was done in clear violation of the rules governing the state assembly.
Onwuenwunor said the rule empowered the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the case.
Counsel representing Meranda, Mrs Abimbola Akeredolu (SAN), said that the suit should be dismissed.
She argued that the speaker’s re-election and subsequent lawsuit against the state assembly constituted an abuse of judicial process.
However, on March 3, Obasa was reinstated as the speaker of the Lagos House of Assembly. (NAN)
