In what seems a pre-emptive move, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has
asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to restrain the House of Representatives
from altering the composition of its leadership.
PDP, in a suit it filed on January 7, urged the court to, among others,
restrain House of Representatives’ Speaker Aminu Tambuwal, other principal
officers and defecting members from taking any step “to alter or change the
leadership of the first defendant (PDP).”
The suit has the House, its Speaker, the Deputy Speaker Emeka Ihedioha
and other principal officers and former PDP members, who defected to the All
Progressives Congress (APC), as defendants.
An officer of the PDP, Nanchang Ndam, said in a supporting affidavit
that while the defection of some of the defendants was still a subject of
litigation before Justice Mohammed, the defendants, particularly the Minority
Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila, have issued threats to change the leadership of the
House.
PDP also urged the court to declare that the defecting lawmakers, who
are plaintiffs in the earlier suit before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the same
court, “are not competent to sponsor, contribute or vote on any motion calling
for the removal or change in the leadership of the House or the removal of any
principal officers of the House.”
It prayed the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants from altering or changing the House’s leadership.
The PDP equally filed an application for interlocutory injunction
restraining the defendants from altering the leadership of the House pendinga
the determination of the substantive suit.
One of the defendants’ lawyers, Sebastine Hon (SAN), has urged the court
to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
In a notice of preliminary objection he filed yesterday for the 11th to
30th defendants, Hon claimed that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to
institute the suit; that the suit is not justiceable; that the court lacked the
jurisdiction to dabble in the internal affairs of the House, and that the case
amounts to an academic or hypothetical exercise.
He also filed a counter-affidavit to the plaintiff’s application for
interlocutory injunction, challenging the competence of the application.
Last Friday, Justice Adeniyi Ademola refused an ex-parte application by
the PDP, in which it sought to restrain the defendants from among others,
altering the House’s leadership. He ordered the party to put the defendants on
notice and adjourned till yesterday.
When the parties returned to court yesterday, defendants’ lawyers,
Mohammud Magaji (SAN), James Ocholi (SAN) and Eric Apia objected to the move by
the plaintiff’s lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), to argue his application for
interlocutory injunction.
The lawyers argued that they were served last Friday and were entitled
to 48 hours to reply. They sought for time to respond.
Justice Ademola granted the defendants’ request. He gave them up to
January 16 to file their responses and serve the plaintiff. He adjourned the
matter till January 20 for hearing of the application for interlocutory
injunction.
Tags
Politics
The PDP are not serious,are they trying to say that d majority votes shoud not supercede their minority or do they want to influence d judgement of court to their favours or what,they are bound to fail,they are evil
ReplyDeleteRaph u don 4 get d formula??? Lemme remind u (16>19)
DeletePDP is apparently trying to make mockery of the judiciary. They have deliberately under funded this arm. I know Jonathan will fail in his bid to destroy this nation . Failure.
ReplyDelete