PDP, APC Shift Battle To Appeal Court Over Defected Reps

Legal onslaught has shifted to Appeal Court, barely 48 hours after Justice Ademola Adeniyi of the Federal High Court in Abuja granted series of perpetual injunctions restraining the 37 lawmakers of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) from taking partor voting in an any motion aimed at effecting leadership change of principal officers of the House of Representatives.

Apparently aggrieved by Monday's judgment which also implied that the defecting lawmakers have to vacate their seats, the House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, and his Deputy, Emeka Ihedioha have filed an appeal at the appellate court.

In a notice of appeal filed in Abuja yesterday by the appellants’ lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), they averred that the lower court erred in its reasoning.

The appellants, therefore, want the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment.

The appellants raised seven grounds of appeal, with a promise to add more, just as they stated that the judgment is "perverse, not supported by thereliefs sought by the plaintiff".

They added that the trial judge "erred in law when he granted reliefs not sought by the plaintiff. The judgment is against the weight of evidence," appellants argued, insisting that Justice Ademola erred in law "when he granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff" and went further to hold that the First to 39th respondents ought to have resigned their seats as members of the 1st appellant. It is the contention of the appellants that the judge erred when he held that the reliefs of the First respondent (PDP) were justiciable and proceeded to grant the reliefs sought without considering the provisions of Section 30 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap L12 Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

According to them, the section provides that "neither the President nor the Speaker, as the case may be, of a legislative house shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested inhim by or under this Act or the standing orders of the Constitution."

They posit that the PDP lacked the locus standi to institute the case because it was not predicated on any recognised legal interest, adding that the reliefs sought were not supported by any legal evidence and that the judge failed to reckon with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Fawehinmi vs Akilu (1987) 12 SC 136, Amaechi vs INEC (2008)1 LRECN 1.

Moreso, they argued that trial judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the suit, which was predicated on the internal affairs of the House of Reps, which is protected under Section 60 of the Constitution. They further argued that the reliefs sought by the PDP were not justiciable, yet the trial judge proceeded to grant the reliefs.

In addition, the appellants submitted that the trial court faulted by holding that the claims of the PDP do not amount to an abuse of court process when there are similar cases involving the same parties, still pending before the court.

Both sides came out with a divergent view of the ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

While the PDP through its deputy leader in the house, LeoOgor has hailed the judgement, the APC on the other hand through the minority leader in the House, Femi Gbajiabiamila described the judgement as travesty of justice

In his reaction, Ogor noted that the judgement was the right interpretation of the situation and advised affected legislators not to bother to appeal the judgement.

"We were more than convinced that the court will do the right thing because you do not need a rocket scientist to interpret Section 68 of the Constitution."

"I’ve always emphasised this position that you cannot reap where you did not sow. Our party has demonstrated that it respects the law of the land."

"My colleagues should not bother to waste their time and resources on appeal."

In his reflection, Gbajiabiamila said the judgment is a product of error of court and that the lawmakers would be willing to appeal at a higher court.

"The judgement is strange and will be appealed. No person can be compelled by law to stayin an association against his or her wishes."

Gbajabiamila also said that the judgment is an affront to right of association of the law­makers.

"It negates the 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."

Also, the House of Repre­sentatives Caucus of the APC yesterday said its fears were confirmed about the neutral­ity of the judiciary in view of what it termed the biased judgement of the court.

Addressing members of the House press corps, minority whip, Samson Osagie speak­ing on behalf of the caucus also informed that the affect­ed members have appealed the judgement.

According to him: "Fed­eral High Court Presided over by Justice Adeniyi Ad­emola handed down a rul­ing in which he restrained 37 APC members who joined our great party on Decem­ber 18, 2013 from effecting the change of leadership in the House of Representatives thereby granting the prayers of the Plaintiffs – the PDP in the suit."

"For us in the APC, we were not surprised because in the course of the proceedings the same judge had earlier issued a preservative order as soon as the arguments against his jurisdiction in the case were taken."

"This was our first apprehen­sion of the commencement of the case. Our fears were further confirmed when the judge after granting the reliefs sought in the suit went ahead to render an opinion on issues that were not before him nor solicited by the plaintiffs."

In trying to explain the content of the judgement, the caucus went ahead to state that a section of the media and indeed the public have been misled by the court ruling into believing that the said judgment has effectively terminated the tenure of office of the affected members.

"This is not only untrue, but also a mere obiter dicta expressed by a judge who veered off the course of the case before him in order to do the bidding of the ruling party. At best, the judgment has turned law on its head and cannot stand."

"Our colleagues have taken steps to appeal the judgment and we are confident that justice will prevail."

"In the meantime, we want to assure members of the public that there is no court judgement before the House, directing any member of the APC to vacate his or her seat."

In the appeal papers made available to Daily Newswatch, sent to Speaker Aminu Tambuwal and filed on their behalf by M.A Mahmud (SAN) & Co, the applicants said they complained the whole decision of the said judgement.They averred that the trial judge erred in law when he dismissed the appellants' preliminary objection on grounds that the suit was not competent. It listed particulars of error to include that the judge did not advert his mind to the provisions of Section 4 of the Nigerian Constitution, failed to reckon his mind with the provisions of Section 60 and failed to follow the decisions in the cases of Attorney Gen­eral of the Federation and 22 others.

They also averred that the judge erred when he refused to hold that the first respondent does not have the locus stand to institute the suit, when he granted the reliefs of the first respondent and went further to hold that the 1st -39th respondents ought to have resigned their seats. That the first respondent suit was predicated upon speculations and that the reliefs sought were not justifiable, unknown to law and do not disclose any cause of action against the appellants.

In all, the defected members mentioned seven particulars of error and are, therefore, seeking an order setting aside the decision of the Federal High Court delivered on 31st March, 2014 and also an order allowing the appeal.