…Pro-Wike Lawmakers Remain Sacked — Opposition Reps

…Say Court Didn’t Void Declaration Of Seats Vacant

ABUJA – Justice Jimi Olukayode-Bada of Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, on Thursday, dismissed an order made by a Rivers State High Court, which had restrained the 24 members of the state House of Assembly led by Martin Amae­whule from parading themselves as members of the Assembly.

Justice Olukayode-Bada, leading two other Justices of the appellate court, made the order in a judgment on an appeal by Amaewhule and the 24 Assembly mem­bers, challenging the interlocutory decision of the Rivers State High Court, made on May 10, 2024. ­

Delivering judgement on the appeal, Justice Olukayode-Bada held that Amaewhule’s appeal was “meritorious” and therefore allowed same.

Consequently, the court in a unanimous decision stated that the suit by Speaker Victor Oko-Jumbo at the Rivers State High Court “is hereby struck out”.

The panel held that Amae­whule and the 24 Assembly mem­bers should revert to the position of things before the restraining order was made.

In determining the issues raised before the court, the panel held that the only court vested with jurisdiction to hear the suit filed by Oko-Jumbo is the Federal High Court and not the State High Court.

Therefore, the panel reasoned that the trial court lacked jurisdic­tion to hear the suit filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents in the first instance.

Consequently, it was the con­tention of the appellate court that the ex parte order which had restrained Amaewhule and the 24 Assembly members, having been made without jurisdiction, “is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

“Trial court lacks the jurisdic­tion to hear and determine the suit of the respondents, the court said.

The panel held that in granting an ex parte order, there must be an existence of “real urgency and not self induced urgency”.

More so, the Court of Appeal said the trial court should have heard the position of the appellant in the interest of fair hearing since there was no urgency before mak­ing the interlocutory injunction.

The panel stated that urgency is sin qua non and a necessary fulcrum upon which an ex parte application rests.

“Ex parte injunction is deter­mined by real urgency and equita­ble remedy, and not by self induced urgency”, the court said.

However, the panel noted that the respondents had contended that they filed an affidavit of ex­treme urgency.

But, the court found out that the cause of action arose from 13th De­cember 2023, and on 8/5/2024, the 1st respondent filed an action.

The 1st respondent, the court observed, “delayed for 140 days to bring the action, which means the delay is self induced.

“Appeal has merit and is al­lowed”, Justice Olukayode-Bada held.

Before dismissing the suit filed by Oko-Jumbo, the court said it had considered the submission of counsel on all sides, before resolv­ing the issues.

“Issue of jurisdiction is the fulcrum, centre pin or main pillar upon which any court rotates.

“Without jurisdiction, any deci­sion by a court stands invalidated”, the panel said, adding that “it is the basis and foundation upon which a court adjudicates on an issue.

“It cannot be assumed or im­plied.

“For a court to have jurisdic­tion, there are conditions to be sat­isfied; these are whether the court is properly constituted; whether the subject matter is within ju­risdiction; and whether the case is initiated by due process of the law”, the panel stated.

The three-man panel noted that Section 272(3) of the 1999 constitu­tion is clear and unambiguous as it reveals that the Federal High Court has the exclusive power to hear and determine issue of whether term of office of an elected lawmaker has become vacant or ceased.

According to the panel, the express mention of Federal High Court in Section 272(3) of the constitution automatically robs any other court of jurisdic­tion on the subject matter.

Pro-Wike Lawmakers Re­main Sacked— Opposition Reps

Meanwhile, the opposition House of Representatives mem­bers under the aegis of G60 have said that the 25 sacked Rivers State lawmakers loyal to Nye­som Wike remain sacked and their seats remain vacant, as Ap­peal Court didn’t decide on the legality of their decampment.

The federal lawmakers said thatthedeclarationof theseatsof the25pro-Wikesacked lawmakers remains valid and have not been nullified by any court in Nigeria.

The spokesperson of the G60 lawmakers, Hon. Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, clarified that the Appeal Court didn’t void the declaration of the seats of 25 pro-Wike sacked lawmakers vacant.

According to him, the Appeal Court focused on declaring that the Federal High Court is the only court with the jurisdiction to decide on the legality or ille­gality of decampment thereby ruling against Rivers High Court proceedings.

He further stressed that the legal fire works continues, as the declaration of the vacant seats is still valid and subject of pending litigation.

He said: “The Court of Ap­peal ruling today shouldn’t be misconstrued in any way. The pro-Wike sacked Rivers law­makers seat remains vacant as Appeal Court didn’t decide on the validity of their illegal de­campment nor the declaration of their seats vacant. Appeal Court focused on declaring that the Federal High Court is the only court with the jurisdiction to decide on the legality or ille­gality of decampment thereby ruling against Rivers High Court proceedings.

“So the actions of the House formerly led by Ehi in declaring the seats vacant have not been declared null and void by any court. Oko-Jumbo remains the speaker of Rivers State House of Assembly, the legal fire works continues, as the declaration of the vacant seats is still valid and subject of pending litigation.

“Also the local government chairmen whose tenure have since expired remains expired and can’t be extended and was never extended. There’s nothing like tenure extension in a dem­ocratic setting, it’s like a coup taking over constitutional gov­ernance.”