Tambuwal Goes To Court, To Stop Judgment Against Defected APC Lawmakers
The
House of Representatives; its Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal; and Deputy
Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, on Tuesday headed for the Court of Appeal,
Abuja Division, to challenge a Federal High Court judgement which
restrained lawmakers who defected to APC from altering the leadership of
the House.
In a notice of appeal filed by their lawyer, Mahmud Magaji, SAN, the House is asking the appellate court to set aside the judgement. Furthermore, they argued that the judge was wrong when he held that the reliefs sought by the PDP in the suit were justiciable and proceeded to grant the reliefs without considering the provision of section 30 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap L12 Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
In a notice of appeal filed by their lawyer, Mahmud Magaji, SAN, the House is asking the appellate court to set aside the judgement. Furthermore, they argued that the judge was wrong when he held that the reliefs sought by the PDP in the suit were justiciable and proceeded to grant the reliefs without considering the provision of section 30 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap L12 Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
The section provides that: “neither the President nor the Speaker, as the case may be, of a legislative house shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in him by or under this Act or the standing orders of the Constitution.”
Justice
Adeniyi Ademola had in his judgment on Monday held that there was no
division in PDP to qualify the legislators to decamp and continue to
retain their seats in line with some provisions of the Constitution.
But
challenging the judgement, the appellants argued that the decision of
the Abuja FHC was “perverse,” and was not supported by the reliefs
sought by the PDP.
They insisted that the trial judge “erred in law when he granted reliefs not sought by the plaintiff,” adding that the judgment “is against the weight of evidence.”
They stressed that Justice Ademola erred when he granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and went further to hold that the respondents ought to have resigned their seats as members of the House of Representatives.
The House of Reps is therefore asking the Court of Appeal to hold that the suit filed by PDP was an abuse of the court because there were similar cases, involving the same parties, still pending before the court.
Specifically, they referred the Appeal Court to the suit between Senator Bello Hayato Gwazo and 79 others vs Alhaji Bamaga Tukur and four others, which they insisted had the same parties and similar prayers with the suit in which Justice Ademola delivered judgment on Monday.
They insisted that the trial judge “erred in law when he granted reliefs not sought by the plaintiff,” adding that the judgment “is against the weight of evidence.”
They stressed that Justice Ademola erred when he granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and went further to hold that the respondents ought to have resigned their seats as members of the House of Representatives.
The House of Reps is therefore asking the Court of Appeal to hold that the suit filed by PDP was an abuse of the court because there were similar cases, involving the same parties, still pending before the court.
Specifically, they referred the Appeal Court to the suit between Senator Bello Hayato Gwazo and 79 others vs Alhaji Bamaga Tukur and four others, which they insisted had the same parties and similar prayers with the suit in which Justice Ademola delivered judgment on Monday.
The drama is getting interesting...
