Court Asks Defected PDP Lawmakers to Vacate House

Says lower chamber cannot change leadership • Defectors, APC to appeal  • Gbajabiamila: This is a strange judgment

Tobi Soniyi and 
Muhammad Bello  


A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the House of Representatives members who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) to vacate their seats.

It ruled that they have no business remaining in the House since they had left the party that brought them in and should have resigned honourably.
It also stopped any move to change the principal officers of the House following the claim that with the defection, the APC had emerged the majority party in the lower chamber of the National Assembly.

Justice Adeniyi Ademola held that the 12th to 53rd defendants (those who defected) could not vote to remove the leadership of the House and could not sponsor a motion to that effect.

However, the defected lawmakers and APC have vowed to challenge the judgment in the Court of Appeal just as some lawmakers criticised the verdict.

PDP had sued the House, and listed as second to 10th defendants all the principal officers of the House comprising the Speaker, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal; Deputy Speaker, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha; Majority Leader, Hon. Mulikat Akande-Adeola; Deputy Majority Leader, Hon. Leo Ogor; Chief Whip, Hon. Isiaka Bawa; Deputy Chief Whip, Hon. Ahmed Mutkar; Minority Leader, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila; Minority Whip, Hon. Samson Osagie; and Deputy Minority Leader, Hon. Sumaila Kawu.

All the lawmakers who defected from the PDP to the APC were also cited in the matter as the 12th to 53rd defendants.
Tambuwal had joined forces with the APC lawmakers in asking that the suit be dismissed for want of merit.

Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Ademola held that the originating summons was justiceable and hence, the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

He held that where the fundamental rights of any person were likely to be breached, the court has the power to intervene.

On the issue of abuse of court process, which was raised by the defendants, the court held that the plaintiff (PDP), in the instant case, was a defendant in other cases and hence the issue of abuse of court process did not arise.

He held that the abuse of court process was misconceived and hence dismissed it.

On the locus standi, the court held that the plaintiff had the locus to file the suit.
The court having determined all the objections raised by the defendants, entered jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The court further held that in view of Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, the 12th to 53rd defendants could not effect changes in the leadership of the House.

Section 68(1)(g) states: “A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected.”

The judge also held that the defected lawmakers could not vote to remove the leadership of the House and also could not sponsor a motion to that effect.

The court also granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defectors from changing the House leadership.

Justice Ademola further granted an order restraining the defendants from altering, tampering or moving towards changing the House leadership.
During the hearing of the case, PDP had asked the court to among others, restrain Tambuwal, other principal officers of the House and its defecting members from taking any step “to alter or change the leadership of the House”.

An officer of the PDP, Nanchang Ndam, had stated in a supporting affidavit that while the defection of some of the defendants was still the subject of litigation before Justice Mohammed, the defendants, particularly Gbajabiamila, had threatened to change the House leadership.

The plaintiff in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2/2014, had raised two questions for the court’s determination and sought four reliefs.

The PDP had asked the court to determine whether, in view of the mandatory provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the constitution, and in view of the pendency of an earlier suit by the defecting lawmakers, they (the defecting legislators) could participate in any proceedings to remove the House's principal officers.

The party equally asked the court to determine whether, in view of the provision of Section 68(1)(g) of the constitution and the pending suit by the defecting legislators, they (the defecting lawmakers) could lawfully alter the composition or constitution of the House leadership.

The defendants, in their 18-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by one Mr. Mike Msenge, told the court that from the prolonged practice of the House (1st defendant), the political party with the majority of members in the House formed its core leadership.

They argued that PDP was not a human being but one of the registered political parties in Nigeria and that the leadership seats in question were being occupied by the 2nd to 8th defendants, who were human beings.

More so, they contended that prior to the defection of the lawmakers to APC, the plaintiff, PDP, hitherto had the majority membership in the House, hence the 2nd to 8th defendants, being members of the plaintiff, were elected into those leadership positions they currently occupy in the House.

They added that with the defection of the 12th to 53rd defendants from the plaintiff to the APC on December 18, 2013, the plaintiff had lost its majority status, which switched to the APC.

Arguing through their team of counsel led by Mr. Sebastian Hon (SAN) and Magaji Mahmud (SAN), the lawmakers stressed that PDP lacked the locus standi to query administrative issues within the House, adding that the plaintiff by its action had shown that it was nothing but a busybody and meddlesome interloper.

They asked the court to discountenance PDP’s argument that the speaker and other principal officers of the House were merely holding a mandate that was entrusted upon them by the party, even as they urged the court to differentiate the case of Rivers State Governor, Chibuike Amaechi, from that of the leaders of the House.

Reacting to the judgment, some of the lawmakers described Justice Ademola's pronouncement as strange and a travesty of the law.
Gbajabiamila, in a statement, said the court erred and the defected legislators would challenge the judgment at the Court of Appeal.

He added that it was an affront to the right of association by the lawmakers.
In the statement issued by his research aide, Wasiu Olanrewaju, the House minority leader said: “The judgement is strange and will be appealed. No person can be compelled by law to stay in an association against his or her wishes.

“It negates a fundamental right of association of every citizen that is inalienable. Section 68 of the constitution has been turned on its head and the error of the court is manifest.  Section 68 was never argued in court by any of the parties. The judge gave an opinion he was never asked to give and an argument that was never canvassed before him.”

One of the defectors, Hon. Ali Ahmed (APC, Kwara), also expressed shock at the judgment, wondering whether it was not a deliberate plan by the PDP to turn reason on its head.

He said: “I hope this is not a grand design by the PDP to collude with the court? If this is so, then my advice to the judiciary is that they should not allow themselves to be used by the executive arm of government.”

He described the judgement as “absurd, terrible and doesn't make sense”.
He wondered whether by the judgment, it meant that even where the defectors had attained a simple majority as stipulated by the constitution, or even surpassed such number, they cannot change the House leadership.