Justice Yetunde Pinheiro of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja has nullified the removal of the reinstated Speaker of the Lagos House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, which took place on January 13, 2025.
The court held that the action of the majority lawmakers including the deputy speaker, Mojisola Meranda in which she emerged as the speaker was unconstitutional and illegal.
The court also set aside all other resolutions and decisions made from the controversial sitting of Jan. 13 and awarded N500,000 to mr Obasa as damages.
The judge declared that by section 101 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) and by order 5 rule 18 (2) of the Lagos state house of assembly Rules and standing Order, the sitting of the House during recess, without the Speaker’s reconvening or authorizing another individual such as the majority leader or minority leader to do so is illegal and unconstitutional.
Mr Obasa commenced the suit brought by way of originating summons on March 3, 2025 against the House of Assembly, his deputy, and thirty two members of the House.
Five other lawmakers were also earlier joined as defendants by an order of the Court.
The claimant was challenging his impeachment following allegations of financial impropriety and gross abuse of office levelled against him by 36 lawmakers.
Though he was reinstated on March 3, after a political mediation by the ruling All Progressives’ Congress, he pressed on with the case, through his lawyers, Afolabi Fashanu (SAN) and Prof. Joshua olatoke (SAN) saying there were “unresolved live issues” in the dispute.
About seven interlocutory rulings and the judgment were delivered on Wednesday.
The 1st, 2nd, as well as 3rd to 36th defendants represented by Femi Falana (SAN), Abimbola Akeredolu (SAN), Ola Daramola (SAN) and Dada Awosika, respectively, filed various preliminary objections saying the court lacks the jurisdiction to meddle in the internal affairs of the House of Assembly, as both organs of government are equal before the law.
But, the judge dismissed their applications, ruling that “the court will only intervene where there is breach of the constitution. I agree with the claimant’s counsel that the facts of this case entitles the court to intervene.
If the suspension isn’t in line with the constitution, it is right for the aggrieved person to go to court.”
In another ruling, the Court held that the matter wasn’t totally an academic exercise, to the effect that nowhere in the March 3 sitting where the claimant was reinstated was any resolution moved or adopted, which extinguished the contentious proceedings of January 13.
“A suit is academic when it has no benefit, value or relevance to the claimant. It can’t be said to be academic simply because the acts complained of have been corrected.
The issues of legality of the impeachment are still alive.
The claimant’s prayer that records of his impeachment be expunged can’t be said to be embarking on an academic exercise, as the allegations leveled against him are grave and weighty allegations, in which he says his right to fair hearing was breached.”
The judge also said failure to institute the case by a writ of summons, Instead of through an originating summons didn’t vitiate the action, as the court would evaluate the supporting documents filed by all the parties and ensure substantive justice in the matter.
In the judgement, the court held that the rules and standing orders of the lagos house of Assembly are legally binding on the lawmakers, as they are a subsidiary legislation that complements the constitution.
It also held that fair hearing is a constitutional requirement, which must be complied with.
The court declared inter alia, that the purported sitting on Jan 13 wasn’t properly constituted and that the removal of the principal officers wasn’t done in line with section 92(2) of the Nigerian Constitution, and that the claimant wasn’t given the opportunity to defend himself as he was not present at that sitting.
