Coup against Tambuwal, others fails

From GODWIN TSA. Abuja

An attempt by the embattled Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to stop a purported change of leadership in the House of Representatives suffered a setback yesterday as a High Court in Abuja declined to grant the ruling party’s request.

Thirty-seven members of the party in the House defected to the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) last month. The development altered the majority status of the PDP in the Lower House of the National Assembly.

Worried by perceived threats by some members of the Lower House to remove the leadership upon their resumption from their recess, the embattled ruling party approached the court with a suit seeking to forestall such moves.

Earlier attempts by the party to secure an ex-parte order stopping the process was equally refused by Justice Ademola Adeniyi, who directed that the defendants be put on notice in the interest of fair hearing.
The defendants are the House of Representatives, the Speaker, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, his Deputy, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha; Hon. Mulikat Akande-Adeola, Majority Leader; Hon. Leo Ogor (Deputy (Majority Leader); Hon. Isiaka Bawa (Chief Whip); Hon. Ahmed Mutkar (Deputy Chief Whip); Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila (Minority Leader); Hon. Samson Osagie [Minority Whip]; Hon. Sumaila Kawu (Deputy Minority Leader); Hon. Garba Datti (Deputy Minority Whip) as well as the 37 members of the PDP who defected to the APC.
When the matter came up yesterday, counsel to the PDP, Yunus Ustaz Usman (SAN), made frantic efforts to convince the court to issue a restraining order against the House from changing its leadership, but the court refused to play ball even as the defence counsel told the court that the suit was not ripe for hearing since service was only effected on them last Friday by 4.54 pm.

Specifically, Chief James Ochuli (SAN), counsel to Speaker Tambuwal, Gbajabiamila, Osagie and Kawu, argued that having been served on Friday evening, the suit has not met the statutorily requirement of 48 hours allowed for his clients to respond to it, and therefore, not ripe for hearing.

The lawyer said by virtue of section 15 [4] of the Interpretation Act, the effective date to begin to count service on the defendants was yesterday [Monday] because holidays are always left out for computation purposes.
He also   noted that  the House will resume from recess on Tuesday,  January 21, 2014 so there was no need granting an interim injunction.

In his submissions, constitution lawyer and counsel to some of the defected lawmakers. Sebastine Hon (SAN), contended that if the court accedes to the request of the plaintiff ‘scounsel to proceed with the hearing of the motion, it would constitute a breach of the statutorily 48-hour rules as well as the fundamental rights of his clients.

He argued that service on Friday which was even after official closing hours cannot be effectual. In addition, he said that even if the court would bend backward to take the application of the plaintiff’s counsel, he has to come formally in written as required by the rules of court.

Mohammed Magaji (SAN), while adopting the submissions of his colleagues posited that technically speaking, there was nothing before the court for determination, since the issue of service has not been resolved.
But rather than accede to the request of the plaintiff, Justice Adeniyi ordered that the defendants to file their responses and other relevant processes on Thursday, January 16, and file on the plaintiff and thereafter adjourned the matter to January 20, for hearing.