The embattled Speaker of the House of Represen-tatives, Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, yester-day, stormed the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court with 68 senior lawyers, saying his life was in great danger.
The Speaker who was equally accompanied to the court by members of the All Progressives Congress, APC, in the House of Representatives, urged the court to direct the Inspector-General General of Police, Sulaiman Abba to restore his security details.
Addressing the court through his lead counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, yesterday, Tambuwal specifically accused the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and its Chairman Alhaji Adamu Mu’Azu of plotting his downfall.
He said that the two defendants had already conscripted the IGP into the plot to politically eliminate him, hence the abrupt withdrawal of all his security details.
Therefore, Fagbemi, who led five other Senior Advocates of Nigeria that appeared for the Speaker yesterday, urged the high court to compel the defendants to show cause why the security aides hitherto attached to the plaintiff should not be restored.
Meanwhile, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, yesterday, ordered the House of Reps to maintain status quo until November 17 when it would hear both the substantive matter that was brought before it by Tambuwal and two separate preliminary objections that were raised against the suit.
Whereas the PDP and its Chairman, Mu’Azu jointly filed the first preliminary objection, the IGP and the Attorney General of the Federation in their own joint objection, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.
Nevertheless, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, yesterday, undertook that nothing would be done to jeopardize the position of the Speaker till the next adjourned date. The AGF through his lawyer, Mr. Okeaya-Inneh, SAN, however urged the court to strike out the suit, contending that “by virtue of section 215(5) of the 1999 Constitution, the court cannot question the powers of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any Minister of the Government of the Federation authority to the Inspector-General on lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order as he may consider necessary”.
In their joint counter affidavit to Tambuwal’s originating summons dated October 30, both the AGF and the IGP, told the court that the membership seat of the 1st plaintiff at the House of Reps became automatically vacant at the point of his defection to the 2nd plaintiff, APC.
“That having ceased to be a member of the House of Reps by his voluntary act, neither the 5th nor the 7th Respondents had anything left to declare vacant and did not so declare. That the 1st plaintiff having ceased to be a member of the House in October, there was nothing left for the Respondents to declare”.
The AGF told the court that contrary to Tambuwal’s claims, he argued that at no time was the PDP divided. He maintained that the plaintiffs argument that he had always belonged to the New PDP was legally flawed as no such political party existed in Nigeria.
“Contrary to paragraph 12 of the plaintiffs affidavit in support of Originating Summons, the 1st plaintiff was elected to the House of Reps on May 6, 2011 and he vacated his seat automatically by virtue of his defection to the 2nd plaintiff.
“That the 1st plaintiff needs to be a member of the 3rd defendant before he can be elected as the Speaker of the 3rd defendant. That contrary to paragraph 21 of the 1st plaintiffs affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the New PDP is not recognised by the 6th defendant (INEC).
“That paragraph 26 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit is factually incorrect. The 1st plaintiff cannot be a member of a nonexistent, unregistered political party as the New PDP is neither registered nor recognised by the 6th defendant”.
The AGF further argued that Tambuwal, “is not constitutionally entitled to security details and as such the 5th defendant did not contravene any law by its withdrawal of the 1st plaintiff’s security details”.
He told the court that the PDP and its Chairman, never threatened to use their contact to declare Tambuwal’s seat vacant at the House of Reps “as the seat had already become vacant by virtue of his defection to the 2nd plaintiff.
“That the withdrawal of the security details of the 1st plaintiff was in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which the 5th defendant is under oath to uphold.
“That it would be in the interest of justice to refuse granting the reliefs sought in the plaintiffs’ Originating Summons”, he added.
Meantime, the Deputy Speaker of the House, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha who was cited as the 4th respondent in the case, yesterday, declined to enter appearance in court, though he was said to have been served with hearing notice since November 3.
Likewise, counsel to the House of Reps (3rd Respondent) Mr. N.C . Ohanze, told the court that he was just briefed on the matter, even as he sought for time to respond to the suit.
On its part, INEC through its lawyer Mr. T. M. Inuwa, told the court that the Commission had resolved to remain neutral in the matter.
After listening to all the parties yesterday, Justice Mohammed in a short ruling, noted that though both the PDP, AGF and IGP urged him to determine the issue of jurisdiction first, he relied on Order 29 Rule (1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2009, and consolidated both the objections and the main suit for hearing on the next adjourned date.
While directing parties to maintain status quo, “I also make an order of accelerated hearing of this matter on weekly basis”, the Judge ruled.
Tambuwal had in his suit, told that court that the defendants, “have the propensity to act with impunity and in total disregard for due process”.
He pleaded that only a quick intervention of the court could stop the “evil plot” against him.
Besides, he alleged that the defendants, “in further demonstration of their unconstitutional conduct”, connived with the Acting Inspector General of Police, Sulaiman Abba, and withdrew all the security details attached to him as the Speaker of the House, a development he said has exposed him to bodily harm.
He is therefore praying the court for “An order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants/ Respondents herein either by themselves or agents, proxies or otherwise howsoever from taking any steps or further steps to abrogate or diminish or take away or interfere with or infringe the 1st plaintiff’s rights and privileges as the Hon Speaker and as a member of the 3rd Defendant/ Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction before this court.
“An order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants/ Respondents herein either by themselves or agents, proxies or otherwise howsoever from taking any steps to remove the 1st plaintiff /applicant from office as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant or in any manner whatsoever taking any steps or further steps to abrogate or diminish the 1st plaintiff’s rights and privileges as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction before this court.
“An order of interim injunction restraining the 6th defendant from accepting any nomination of candidates or otherwise organizing a bye-election for the purpose of replacing he 1st plaintiff or taking over his seat as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant, pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction before this Hon Court.
“An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th and 7th defendants, their agents, servants, members or whosoever act for them or in their names or at their instruction from removing, discussing the removal of, or attempting to discuss the removal of the 1st plaintiff as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the plaintiffs and pending before this court.
As well as, “An order of interim order of mandatory injunction directing the 5th and 7th defendants, their agents or servants to restore to the 1st plaintiff his security details and all other rights, benefits and privileges appurtenant to the 1st applicant as member of the Hon. Speaker of the 3rd defendant pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory injunction before the court”.
In a five paragraphed affidavit deposed to by one Ejura Patience Ochimana, Tambuwal accused the PDP, Mu’Azu and the Deputy Speaker of the House, Ihedioha of conspiring to remove him from office.
He said: “That when the 1st plaintiff became a member of the 2nd plaintiff, the 1st, 2nd, 5th and the 7th defendants began to intimidate, harass, and use self help against him; and they purported to declare his seat as member of the House of Representatives vacant.
“That in further demonstration of their unconstitutional conduct, the 5th defendant withdrew all his security details and thereafter issued a press statement justifying the said withdrawal by citing provisions of the constitution.
“That in particular the 1st and 2nd defendants have been threatening to use their contacts to ensure that the seat of the 1st plaintiff in the 3rd defendant is declared vacant so that the 6th defendant would organize a bye-election to fill it.
“That the 1st plaintiff received and is receiving threats that the 1st- 5th defendants will cause the 3rd defendant to remove him from the office of Speaker because of his membership of the 2nd plaintiff and the 5th defendant issued a statement in that direction after he withdrew security details of the 1st plaintiff.
“That on the 28th day of October 2014, the 1st and 2nddefendants threatened to forcibly remove the 1st plaintiff from office as the Speaker of the 3rddefendant. That on the 30th day of October 2014, the 3rd and 4th defendants began to strategize on how to unlawfully remove the 1st plaintiff from office as the Speaker of the 3rd defendant.
“That on the 30th day of October 2014, the 5th defendant at the behest of the 1st -4th defendants withdrew his security details thereby exposing him to danger of bodily harm all in their bid to forcibly remove him from office and the 5th defendant issued press statement to that effect.
“That in the circumstances, the applicants are and have become apprehensive that the 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 4th , 5th and the 7th defendants will use unlawful means to make good their threats if this Hon. Court does not intervene to stop them.
“That the Originating Summons pending before this court raises serious and fundamental questions of constitutional importance. That the plaintiffs/applicants undertake to pay damages should their claims turn out to be frivolous.
“That despite the fact of the pendency of the case the defendants herein acting in concert and to sabotage the pending Originating Summons, and in total disregard for due process have concluded plan to forcefully and illegally remove the 1st plaintiff and to replace him.
“There is an urgent need to restore to the 1st plaintiff all his rights and privileges including his security details which were illegally and unconstitutionally withdrawn even when the 1st plaintiff remains as the Hon. Speaker and a member of the 3rd defendant.
“That the 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th and 7th defendants are planning to illegally and unconstitutionally reconvene the sitting of the 3rd defendant before 3/12/2014, the date the sitting of the 3rd defendant, was lawfully adjourned to, without following due process for the sole purpose of discussing and perfecting the forceful remove of the 1st plaintiff before the case of the plaintiff is heard and determined.
“That the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th defendants have no regards for due process unless this Hon Court intervenes”, he added. (AIT)
