BEVERLY HILLS, December 01, (THEWILL) – An Abuja court has quashed the bid by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to sack Alhaji Aminu Tambuwal as the Speaker of the House of Representatives following his defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
With the quashing of the application and subsequent adjournment of hearing in the matter to December 12, Tambuwal is thus free to preside over the affairs of the House when it resumes plenary on Wednesday.
This is as the presiding judge of the court, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, quashed an exparte application filed by PDP to compel Tambuwal to vacate his seat as Speaker of the House following his defection from PDP to APC.
Instead, Justice Mohammed directed the party to put the Speaker on notice.
PDP’s counsel, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN), had argued that Tambuwal had lost his seat following his defection, according to the provisions of section 68 of the 19999 constitution.
Joined as respondents in the motion is the Speaker , Tambuwal, and the Deputy Speaker of the House, Emeka Ihedioha.
The application urged the court to order Tambuwal to give effect to the provisions of section 68(1)(g) of the constitution of the Federal Repuplic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to declare his seat at the House of Representatives vacant.
The ruling party also asked the court for an alternative order directing the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives to declare the Kebbe/Tambuwal federal constituency seat which Tambuwal occupies vacant by an order of mandamus.
PDP also prayed the court to stop Tambuwal from performing or continuing to perform the function of the Speaker in the House of Representatives, or sitting or continuing to sit in the House as a member.
The party had supported the exparte motion with a 16-paragraph affidavit as it averred that Tambuwal, who was sponsored in the 2011 general elections by the PDP has defected from the party to APC, as he announced on October 28, thereby informing the House on his present status as required by law.
James Ugbogu, a lawyer, who deposed to the affidavit, said it was constitutional for House of Representatives to declare Tambuwal’s seat vacant following his defection to APC.
The party argued that under Section 53(3) of the 1999 constitution, “the Deputy Speaker should perform the functions of a Speaker of the House of Representatives in the absence of a Speaker in valid occupancy of the position, or legal incapacitation of the incumbent Speaker.”
But the trial judge, Justice Abubakar, in his ruling ordered that Tambuwal and other respondents in the motion should be put on notice through substituted service as he adjourned till December 12 for further hearing of the matter.
In a related development, Tambuwal has petitioned the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court Abuja, praying that his suit, seeking the reinstatement of his security details, allegedly assigned to Justice Evoh Chukwu be re-assigned to another judge for likelihood of bias on Chukwu’s part.
In a petition filed on Monday against Justice Chukwu, Tambuwal ,who is billed to preside over plenary session when the House reconvenes on Wednesday, prayed the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Ibrahim Auta, to reassign the case to a “neutral Judge who has not made any judicial pronouncement on the issue, or made public his own opinion on the issue at hand.”
In the petition seeking the reassignment of the suit with registration number: FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2014 to another judge, the Speaker observed that the presiding Judge, Justice Chukwu, ESJ. had in the past “made a pronouncement on similar issues, in similar cases, decided by him,” and submitted that the learned Justice is likely to harbour “an iron cast judicial position or opinion in respect the Suit.”
In a statement issued on Monday, Tambuwal had said: “My attention has been drawn to the above suit, which has been assigned to Court 8, presided over by Justice ESJ Chukwu, and we wish to make the following observations:
“Sometime in 2013, the said Presiding Judge, Justice ESJ Chukwu presided over the case of PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & 12 ORS VS. INEC & 4 ORS, wherein he made a judicial pronouncement, which has been interpreted by some , to the effect that there was no division, in PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The above decision of Justice Chukwu, ESJ. was heavily relied upon and cited severally in the case of PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY VS. (1) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; (2) THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES & 52 ORS, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/4/2014.
“Consequently, Justice A.F.A Ademola, relying on the said judgement of his brother Justice Chukwu, ESJ, even though, the said Suit before him, had nothing to do with defection, ruled that there was no division within the Peoples Democratic Party.And as such, the Defendants in that case, who are members of the House of Representatives, who have similar cases as mine, currently pending in the Federal High Court Abuja, were not protected by proviso to Section 68(1)(g) Of the 1999 Constitution. He rested his decision on that earlier judgement of Justice Chukwu aforementioned.
“The said judgement of Justice A.F.A Ademola, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/4/2014 is subject of four pending Appeals at the Court of Appeal Abuja Judicial Division viz Appeal No. CA/A/343/2014 and Appeal No. CA/A/343A/2014 and CA/A/343B/2014 and Appeal No. CA/A/343D/2014.
“My Lord, similar Suits were variously instituted by various parties and are pending before the Federal High Court No. 7, presided over by Justice A.R Mohammed, in Suits No. FHC/ABJ/CS/621/2013; Between SENATOR BELLO HAYATU GWARZO & 78 ORS VS. ALH. BAMANGA TUKUR & 4 ORS and are at various stages of proceeding pending before Court 7, presided over by Justice A.R Mohammed, some of these cases are:
1. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY VS. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES & 53 ORS – Suit FHC/CS/ABJ/4/2014.
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY VS. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – Suit FHC/CS/ABJ/57/2014.
3. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY VS. THE PRESIDENT OF SENATE – Suit FHC/CS/ABJ/65/2014.
4. NNAMDI NWOKOCHA AHAIWE VS. THE SENATE PRESIDENT & ORS – FHC/ABJ/CS/79/2014.
5. A.G. FEDERATION VS. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES – FHC/ABJ/CS/317/2014.
“My Lord, my apprehension is particularly in respect of the presiding Judge, Justice Chukwu, ESJ. having made a pronouncement on similar issues, in similar cases, decided by him, clearly shows that he has an iron cast judicial position or opinion in respect of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2014 concerning me Sir, which has just been assigned to him.
“A perusal of the new case assigned to Justice ESJ Chukwu, No. FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2014 shows that the Plaintiff is asking the Court to interpret the decisions of the Court in the two aforementioned Cases. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & 12 ORS VS. INEC & 4 ORS and Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/4/2014. In effect, to sit on Appeal over his own decision.
“My apprehension is further fortified by the fact that both decisions of Justice Chukwu and Justice Ademola as captured in the said suits are subject of Appeal in the Court of Appeal.”
Arguing his position further, the Speaker referred to the case involving Metropolitan Properties Co. Ltd v. Lannan and Others, wherein Lord Denning said: “In considering whether there was a real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact favour one side at the expense of the other. The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless, if right-minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, and then he should not sit. And if he sits, his decision cannot stand … The court will not inquire whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The Judge was biased.”
Tambuwal thus prayed the court to accede to his request, saying: “In view of the above stated facts, I humbly urge my Lord to re-assign the said Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2014 to a neutral judge, who has not made any judicial pronouncement on the issue, or made public, his own opinion on the issue at hand.”
