Speaker of the House of Representatives,
\nAminu Tambuwal, his deputy, Emeka
\nIhedioha and 37 lawmakers that defected
\nfrom the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
\nto the All Progressives Congress (APC)
\nhave filed an appeal against the
\njudgement of Justice Adeniyi Ademola of
\nthe Federal High Court in Abuja.
\nJustice Ademola had on Monday in a
\nruling on suit FHC\/ABJ\/CS\/4\/14 filed by
\nthe leadership of the ruling PDP, granted
\na perpetual injunction, restraining the
\nLower Chamber lawmakers from effecting
\nleadership change.
\nThe trial Judge also held that the 37
\nlawmakers that defected from the PDP to
\nthe All Progressives Congress (APC)
\nshould seize from participating in debates
\nand motions in the House.
\nThe leadership of PDP had approached the
\ncourt to restrain members of the House of
\nReps from effecting leadership change,
\nfollowing defection of 37 PDP members to
\nAPC that then conferred on the APC,
\nmajority status.
\nBut, the appellants \u2013 Tambuwal, Ihedioha
\nand 37 lawmakers, through their counsel,
\nMahmud Magaji (SAN), faulted Justice
\nAdemola\u2019s ruling and urged the Court of
\nAppeal sitting in Abuja to set aside the
\njudgment.
\nThey described the judgment as \u201cperverse,
\nnot supported by the reliefs sought by the
\nplaintiff.\u201d, raised seven grounds of appeal,
\nsaying more could be added.
\nAlso, the appellants argued that the
\njudgment \u201cis against the weight of
\nevidence.\u201d, noting that Justice Ademola,
\nerred \u201cwhen he granted the reliefs sought
\nby the plaintiff and \u201cwent further to hold
\nthat the 1st to 39th respondents ought to
\nhave resigned their seats as members of
\nthe 1st appellant.
\nThe appellants further argued that the
\nJudge erred when he held that the reliefs
\nof the 1st respondent (PDP) were
\njusticeable and proceeded to\u00a0 grant the
\nreliefs sought without considering the
\nprovision of Section 30 of the Legislative
\nHouses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap
\nL12 Law of the Federation of Nigeria
\n2004.
\nThe section quoted provides that \u201cneither
\nthe President nor the Speaker as the case
\nmay be, of a legislative house shall be
\nsubjected to the jurisdiction of any court
\nin respect of the exercise of any power
\nconferred on or vested in him by or under
\nthis Act or the standing orders of the
\nConstitution.\u201d
\nTherefore, they are of the view that trial
\njudge wrongly assumed jurisdiction over
\nthe suit, bothering on the internal affairs
\nof the House of Representatives, which is
\nprotected under Section 60 of the
\nConstitution.
\nThe appellants referred to suit number
\nFHC\/ABJ\/CS\/621\/2013 between Senator
\nBello Hayato Gwazo\u00a0 and 79 others vs
\nAlhaji Bamaga Tukur and 4 others\u00a0 and
\nargued that the parties and reliefs sought
\nwere similar with that on which the judge
\ngave judgment.
\nIn the same vein, they contended that the
\nPDP lack the locus standi to institute the
\ncase as the reliefs sought were not
\nsupported by any legal evidence and that
\nthe judge ignored the Supreme Court\u2019s
\ndecision in the case of Fawehinmi vs
\nAkilu (1987) 12 SC 136, Amaechi vs INEC
\n(2008)1 LRECN 1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, his deputy, Emeka Ihedioha and 37 lawmakers that defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) have…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":24958,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-exclusive"],"yoast_head":"\n