Obasa Excited As Court Voids Assembly Proceedings, Nullifies His Impeachment

THERE is excitement in the camp and political family of the re-instated Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, as a state High Court in Ikeja declared his removal of as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
In her judgment delivered on Wednesday, April 16, Justice Yetunde Pinheiro nullified the proceedings and resolutions of the House held on January 13, this year, during which Obasa was impeached.
The Judge also awarded N500,000 as damages for the unlawful and illegal removal of Obasa and for the psychological embarrassment he suffered as a result of the illegal removal.
Recall that Obasa had filed a suit on February 12 against the House of Assembly and his successor, Mojisola Meranda, challenging the legality of his removal.
His Counsel, Afolabi Fashanu (SAN), argued that Obasa’s removal by 36 lawmakers occurred while the Assembly was on recess and he was out of the country, urging the court to declare the process unlawful, as the sitting was invalid, having been held without his authority or any formal delegation of power.
In a judgment which lasted over three hours, Justice Pinheiro dismissed the preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit, holding that non-compliance with pre-action notices does not make the suit inactive.
On the objection that the court does not have the jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Assembly, she held that “a court of law can intervene where the provisions of the Constitution have not been met during any proceedings of the house of assembly”.
The Judge also held that in cases where there is a lacuna in the provisions of the Constitution, the court can intervene, citing the cases of Usman v Kaduna State House of Assembly, Agbaso Vs Imo State and Rivers State House of Assembly Vs Government of Rivers State.
She stated that in deserving instances, it has also intervened when the House Rules had not been properly followed and where fair hearing had not been ensured.
The court agreed with Obasa that the facts of the case were questions that the court could adjudicate upon, saying the issues in question had to do with the constitutionality of the procedure of the Lagos House of Assembly on the day Obasa was removed, and especially if due process was followed.
Relying on the Rules of the House of Assembly, the court noted that no person other than leaders of the Assembly has the capacity to write to the Speaker to convene a Meeting, insisting that the Chief Whip is not a leader.
The court also stated that by the Rules of the Lagos State House of Assembly, there exists a hierarchy under Order 7, noting that Rule 30, which relates to the authority of the Chief Whip, does not confer on him such authority.
The Judge held that every step taken towards reconvening the plenary of the Assembly after it had adjourned indefinitely could not stand and was inconsequential if majority of members voted for the meeting.
In the final analysis, she held that the defendants cannot validly remove Obasa without complying with Order 2, Rule 9 of the Lagos State House of Assembly Rules and therefore set aside the sitting, removal of Obasa as Speaker and installation of Meranda as Speaker.