Embattled member of the House of
Representatives, Farouk Lawan, on Thursday told an Abuja High Court that he was
immune from civil prosecution for any action he took on the floor of the House
while serving as the chairman of the ad-hoc committee that probed the
management of fuel subsidy in the country.
He said this in a preliminary
objection to N250bn suit filed against him by a businessman, Femi Otedola. He
asked the court to dismiss the suit on the basis that the action over which he
was dragged to court was taking in the course of his duty as chairman of the
committee.
Lawan was removed as the
chairman of the committee amid accusation by Otedola that he (Lawan)
obtained $620,000 bribe from him in order to strike out the name of
his company, Zenon Oil, from the list of indicted firms.
The Lawan-led committee had
indicted some firms and individuals of shortchanging the subsidy regime to the
tune of N1.7trn. It consequently recommended their prosecution by the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission.
Otedola had alleged intimidation by
the House in the wake of his accusation against Lawan and consequently sued the
lawmaker; the Speaker, Alhaji Aminu Tambuwal; the Clerk of the
National Assembly; and the National Assembly. He is asking the court to make
the defendants pay him N250bn as damages for the loss of goodwill
as a result of their actions in the course of the probe.
At the resumption of hearing in
the case on Thursday,Lawan and Tambuwal argued that the court lacked the
jurisdiction to try them.
In a preliminary objection filed by
his counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, Lawan asked the court to dismiss the suit on
the grounds that “Section 3 of the Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges Act
Cap L 12 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” gives him absolute immunity
from civil proceedings in respect of what he said on the floor of the House .
Lawan said the suit concerned actions
he took on the floor of the House in his capacity as a member and that the
subject matter of the suit has to do with the revenue of the country.
Arguing in support of the objection,
Ogunwumiju maintained that Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution had denied
the court the powers to hear and determine the suit.
Rather, the defence counsel noted
that it was the Federal High Court that had the jurisdiction to entertain the
suit.
Lawan’s lawyer also argued that
Otedola’s suit was premature.
“The law says that when an
Ad-Hoc Committee report is set and a report is submitted, no cause of action
arises from the report until a White Paper is out or until the House adopted
the resolution of that report,” he said.
According to him, the Lawan-led
committee only submitted its report to the House and no cause of action can arise
at that stage.
Lawan also restated his claim that
Otedola wanted to bribe him to compromise the work of the committee, and
that he collected the money in order to expose the businessman.
On his part, Tambuwal argued that he
could not be a party to the suit as all the issues raised in
the plaintiff’s statement of claim did not, in anyway, relate to the Office of
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or the Speaker himself.
The Speaker’s lawyer, Chief Mike
Ahamba (SAN), said, “Tambuwal is not a necessary party in this suit and as
such, his presence is not required.”
But Otedola’s counsel asked the court
to dismiss the defendants’ objections and go ahead to hear and determine the
suit.
Otedola’s lawyer, Babajide Koku(SAN),
noted that the Legislative Houses Powers and Privileges Act confers immunity on
parliamentarians for words spoken on the floor of the House. But he stressed
that the matter before the court was different as it involves phone calls from
Lawan to Otedola demanding bribe.
Koku said, “Farouk demanded $3m and
you forced us to pay $620,000. It is intimidation. Whether they collected the
money in part or in full cannot absolve them to say we cannot institute an
action.”
He added that Tambuwal was a party in
the alleged intimidation, making him a necessary party in the suit.
The presiding judge, Justice Peter
Kekemeke, adjourned the matter to January 30, 2013, to rule on the defendants’
preliminary objections.