……to deliver ruling on appointment of Reps principal officers today

‎By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA – The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, declined to retrain the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, from placing reliance on the provisions of the alleged forged Senate Standing Orders 2015, to constitute committees for the Senate.

‎In a ruling yesterday, Justice Gabriel Kolawole refused to issue an interim order of injunction against Saraki, the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu and the Clerk of the National Assembly, who were all cited as defendants in the matter.

Other defendants in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/651/2015,‎ which was filed by five members ‎of the pro-Ahmed Lawan group in the Senate, included the Senate itself and the National Assembly.

The plaintiffs- Senators Abu Ibrahim, Kabir Marafa, Ajayi Boroffice, Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuni, all belong to the All Progressives Congress, APC.

They were members of the‎ ‘Unity Forum’‎ in the Senate which supported Lawan to emerge as the Senate President in the election that was won by Saraki on June 9.

Meantime, sequel to the ongoing controversy over the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Order 2015, the plaintiffs approached the court with an ex-parte application wherein they applied for a restraining order ‎against the defendants.

Basically, the plaintiffs, through ‎their lawyer Chief Mamman Osuman, SAN, sought for “An interim order of injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants/respondents (Saraki, Ekweremadu and the Senate) from constituting the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of committees, or sub-committee whether Standing and ad hoc committees on the basis of the provisions of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended) or any other order and any other set of rules pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice”‎.

Refusing to grant the ex-parte ‎motion, Justice Kolawole stressed that going by the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary, has no power to meddle in the domestic affair of the legislature.

He held that the contention by the plaintiffs that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 is a fraudulent legislative ‎instrument, was not enough to invoke the powers conferred on the judiciary under section 251(1) of the 1999 constitution, as amended, to interfer in the activities of the Senate.

Justice Kolawole said there was hardly any substantial ‎reference to infraction of any provision of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, by the plaintiffs.

The court as “self induced”, the issue of urgency that was raised by the plaintiffs.

According to the court, “As far back as June 10, 2015, the plaintiffs were aware of the existence of the said Senate Standing Orders 2015, and the Orders have been well known to them. Just in less than 24 hours, the plaintiffs rushed to court to seek an interim injunction.

“Having gone through the processes that were filed before the court and listened to counsel to the plaintiffs, I did not notice any substantial infraction on the 1999 constitution. I am unable to exercise my discretion to grant the ex-parte application on the ground of urgency that was self induced by the plaintiffs”.

The judge stressed that though the court was established to serve as sentinel to the other organs of government, he said that “so far the dispute relates to the internal affairs of the National Assembly, this court can hardly intervene”.

He said: “The court is not created to supervise the National Assembly in its activities but can only intervene where there is ‎substantial infraction on the constitution. Where the NASS as the legislative arm of government is alleged to have contravened its own rules, the court as the third arm of government should be wary so as not to be seen as hijacking the powers of the NASS in handling its affairs.

“Members of the NASS should be trusted to be able to mobilise themselves to address issues on the floor. Consequently, I am unable to grant an interim injunction at the instance of five out of 109 Senators”, Justice Kolawole added.

Instead of granting the ex-parte application, the court directed the plaintiffs to go and put the defendants on notice, even as it fixed August 5 to commence hearing on the substantive suit.

Meantime, the court will today, determine the merit of another suit seeking to restrain the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Yakubu Dogara from appointing principal officers outside the names that were recommended to the House by the APC.

The suit which was filed by two House of Reps members, Mr. Abubakar Lado-Abdullahi from Niger State and Mr. Olajide Abdul-Jimoh from Lagos State, have the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Mr. Yusuf Lasun and the Clerk to the House, Mr. Mohammed Sani-Omolori, as defendants.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution which deals with the Principle of Federal Character, is applicable to the sharing of principal offices in the National Assembly.

According to them, “It is an indisputable fact that the positions in question are party positions; that is, principal offices of the APC, albeit that they concomitantly are also principal positions within the House of Representatives.

“Consequently, the 1st and 2nd Defendants (Speaker and Deputy Speaker) shall in accordance with Article 9.2 of APC Constitution, which states, ‘members of the party shall be obligated to affirm the party’s aims and objectives’, implement the party’s aims as contained in the party’s nomination letter”.