Justice Yetunde Pinheiro of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, today, reserved judgment in the legal action instituted by Mudashiru Obasa, the reinstated Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, over the controversial January 13, 2025, session that led to his removal.
The judge equally entertained multiple preliminary objections raised by various legal representatives of the defendants, just as she stated that the date for the final judgment and rulings on these objections would be communicated to all parties in due course.
Legal Debate on House Procedure and Jurisdiction
Obasa’s lead counsel, Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN), urged the court to assume jurisdiction over the matter, arguing that the January 13 sitting was unconstitutional.
He claimed that the House of Assembly was in recess at the time, and the session was convened without notifying either the Speaker or the Majority Leader, who hold the exclusive authority to recall the House during a recess.
However, Femi Falana (SAN), who was previously recognized by the court as the House of Assembly’s official legal representative, opposed the suit.
He argued that Obasa’s re-election as Speaker on March 3, along with the reinstatement of Mojisola Meranda as Deputy Speaker, had rendered the legal challenge redundant.
Divided Legal Arguments on Speaker’s Removal
Olu Daramola (SAN), representing the 3rd to 35th defendants, insisted that the removal of the Speaker was an internal affair of the House and should not be subject to judicial interference.
He maintained that the January 13 plenary was valid, as it was conducted within the legislative chambers, and the decision to remove Obasa met the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority vote.
On the other hand, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), representing the 36th to 40th defendants who support Obasa’s claims, contended that the January 13 session violated the House’s procedural rules.
He argued that this procedural breach gave the court jurisdiction to hear the case and determine the constitutionality of the disputed session.
Preliminary Objections and Call for Dismissal
Falana, on behalf of the first defendant, called for the case to be dismissed, citing procedural lapses.
He pointed out that Obasa had failed to issue a pre-action notice to the House of Assembly before filing the lawsuit, a step required by law.
Additionally, Falana and other defence lawyers emphasized that the House of Assembly has the exclusive right to appoint and remove its leadership without court interference.
They argued that Obasa’s decision to accept reelection as Speaker implied his acceptance of the House’s previous actions, making his legal challenge unnecessary.
Constitutionality of January 13 Plenary Still in Question
Despite the defence’s position, Olatoke insisted that the case remained relevant, arguing that the constitutional validity of the January 13 session had not been resolved.
“We contend with the proceedings of January 13 as it deals with the constitutionality of that plenary,” Olatoke stated.
“We also seek that the court nullifies that proceeding because it wasn’t constitutional,” he added.
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