Court suspends judgment on suit seeking to sack Saraki, 55 other lawmakers

The Federal High Court, Abuja has suspended delivery of judgment
in a suit filed by an advocacy group, Legal Defence and Assistance
Project, (LEDAP) seeking the sack of Senate President, Bukola
Saraki and 55 other lawmakers.

LEDAP dragged Saraki and the 55 other 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 group, in their 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 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.

They had argued the matter in court with only a counsel to the
Senate President being represented once while the other defendants
never sent representation.

The court, being satisfied that the processes were served on all
parties but they chose to disrespect the court and stay away,
allowed the plaintiff to argue his case and fixed April 11 for
judgment.

When the matter was called on Thursday for judgement, counsel to
Saraki and the other lawmakers, Mr Mahmud Magaji,SAN, urged the
court to tarry in delivering judgment to hear from the defence team
in order to deliver a better-informed judgment.

“The court should wait a while and hear from the other side now
that certain facts are available to it.”
He further contended that in law, once an issue of jurisdiction was
raised, it behoved on the court to hear it first before handling
any other issue in the matter.

Magaji also challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the
matter on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no

“locus standi” to file the suit.

According to him, they are only busybodies and meddlesome
interlopers.

The counsel to the plaintiff, Mr Ede Uko, however, argued that
the defendant’s counsel was only attempting to arrest the judgment
of the court.

According to him, the law is trite under our jurisprudence that
the judgment, particularly the final judgment of the court cannot
be arrested.

“I submit with respect that the application of the defendants
seeking to arrest this judgment is misconceived and completely
incompetent.

He referred the court to several Supreme Court rulings where it
was firm to say that no antics of parties could be allowed to be
used to frustrate the administration of justice.

Uko further argued that the conduct of the defence in the matter
was not worthy of sympathetic consideration since they were duly
served with all processes of the court and they even briefed a
counsel to handle the matter.

He said it was not the fault of the plaintiff that the said
counsel failed to appear in court again seeing that the defence had
nothing to file but to concede to the claims of the plaintiff.

” What the defence is seeking to hold onto is like a drowning
man seeking to hold onto imaginary straws to keep afloat that is
why they are coming to fish for defects even in the court, ” he
argued.

He prayed the court to discountenance and dismiss the
application of the defendants and deliver the already prepared
judgment not minding whose ox was gored.

The trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, in a bench ruling said that
although he agreed with the argument of the plaintiff’s counsel,
delivering the prepared judgment would be a wrong exercise of the
court’s discretion.

He held that the defendants waved their right to defend the
matter and that the conduct of the lawmakers did not deserve a
sympathetic consideration.

“The defendants had sufficient time to challenge this suit but
failed. They allowed the plaintiff to incur cost to prosecute this
matter and also allowed the court to painstakingly prepare
judgment.

” They are now in court trying to arrest the judgment, ” the
judge held.

He, however, maintained that notwithstanding what the plaintiff
and the court had gone through, the right of the defendants to be
heard was a fundamental matter.

“I think the defendants should be heard before judgment is
given.

” It will be a breach of the fundamental right of the defendants
to fair hearing, though they came late into the matter, for the
court to proceed and deliver judgment.

“I will reluctantly suspend delivery of the judgment to allow
the defendants to be heard,” the judge said.

He added that since time was of the essence, the defendants were
ordered to serve the plaintiff their application for the
enlargement of time by Thursday.

The judge also ruled that a fresh date will be given for
judgement as soon as the defendants were heard.
He adjourned the matter until April 12.

Some of the other lawmakers involved as defendants are; senators
Godswill Akpabio, Dino Melaye, Rabiu Kwankwaso, Lanre Tejuosho,
Shaba Lafiaji, Barnabas Gemade, Abdulaziz Nyako among other
senators and members of the House of Representatives.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) and the
Attorney-General of the Federation are also defendants in the
matter.