A courtroom drama unfolded on Friday at the Lagos State High Court as two lawyers laid claim to representing the Lagos State House of Assembly in a suit filed by Mudashiru Obasa, the embattled former Speaker, challenging his removal.
Obasa, who was allegedly impeached on January 13, 2025, filed the suit (ID/9047GCM/2025) before Justice Yetunde Pinheiro, arguing that the House’s proceedings during a recess, without his authorization or delegation, were unconstitutional.
His counsel, Chief Afolabi Fashanu (SAN), is leading his legal battle.
The case hinges on the interpretation of various constitutional provisions, including Sections 36, 90, 92(2)(c), 101, and 311 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), alongside the Lagos State House of Assembly’s Standing Orders.
During Friday’s proceedings, several senior lawyers appeared in court:
Chief Afolabi Fashanu (SAN), represented Obasa, Femi Falana (SAN), appeared for the first defendant — the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mr.l Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), represented Mojosola Lasbat Meranda, the current Speaker, and Olu Daramola (SAN), appeared for parties seeking to join the suit.
However, tension arose when another lawyer, Abang Mkpandiok, challenged Falana’s representation of the House of Assembly.
Mkpandiok informed the court that he had been briefed by the Assembly the previous night and had filed a motion that morning seeking a change of counsel.
He argued that the right to choose legal representation is fundamental and urged the court to first address his application.
His motion, filed under Order 52, Rules 2 and 3 of the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019, sought to replace Falana with himself.
Falana, however, objected, stating that he had not been served with any notice of the change and had not received any official debriefing.
He insisted that he remained the House’s counsel on record.
Oyetibo, representing Meranda, also confirmed he had not been served with Mkpandiok’s application.
Faced with this procedural gap, Mkpandiok served copies of his application to the other counsels present in court.
After reviewing the court’s records, Justice Pinheiro ruled that the motion for a change of counsel was not ready for hearing, as it had not been properly served on all parties.
The judge deferred the matter until compliance with court procedures was met.
Adding another layer of complexity, Daramola (SAN), informed the court about a Motion on Notice filed by 33 members of the Lagos State House of Assembly.
These lawmakers, elected to represent various wards and constituencies, sought to be joined as co-defendants in the case.
The motion, brought under Section 361 of the Constitution and relevant rules of the Lagos High Court, requested two main reliefs:
1. That the individuals seeking to be joined be recognized as co-defendants.
2. That the originating and subsequent legal processes be amended to reflect their names.
Justice Pinheiro scheduled March 7 for the hearing of all pending applications, including the contested representation of the Assembly.
Following the proceedings, Speaker Meranda addressed journalists, dismissing rumours that she had resigned.
Regarding security concerns, she confirmed that while her full security detail, comprising 12 police officers and four DSS operatives, had not been fully restored, she currently had four police officers assigned to her.
Copyright Notice:
All rights reserved. The content on this website, including text and other digital materials, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without the express written consent of THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
For advertising inquiries, news coverage, or press releases, please contact us at thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or call 08144048512, 08051017159.
Post a Comment