By Hassanat Adebowale
The Ikeja High Court has extended the hearing of the suit filed by reinstated Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, to March 17. Obasa is contesting allegations that led to his impeachment as Speaker, including fraud, abuse of office, high-handedness, and gross misconduct.
The respondents in the case include members of the Lagos State House of Assembly and former Speaker Mojisola Meranda, who briefly replaced Obasa following his removal.
During Monday’s proceedings, Femi Falana, SAN, lead counsel for the House of Assembly, informed the court that Obasa’s lawyer, Afolabi Fasanu, SAN, had served additional affidavits earlier in the day. Falana noted that the new documents required a response from his clients.
Meranda’s counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, also raised concerns about the affidavits, stating that they contained serious fraud allegations against his client. He requested an adjournment to allow time to respond to the new claims.
Additionally, Olusola Idowu, SAN, announced his appearance as incoming counsel for the House of Assembly. Falana subsequently requested the court to hear an application regarding the change of counsel, citing a Court of Appeal decision that mandates trial courts to address such applications before considering other matters.
Justice Yetunde Pinheiro, however, ruled that all applications and processes would be heard together on the next adjourned date. She directed all parties to file, serve, and exchange their documents before March 17. “All applications, including those seeking injunctions and those challenging jurisdiction, will be heard on March 17,” Pinheiro stated. She added that the application for the change of counsel would also be addressed alongside other matters.
The case stems from Obasa’s impeachment on January 13 over allegations of gross misconduct, which led to the election of his deputy, Mojisola Meranda, as Speaker. However, Obasa was reinstated on March 3 following Meranda’s resignation.
GI’s Legal Corner
Obasa’s impeachment earlier this year came amid allegations of financial misconduct and authoritarian leadership. His unexpected reinstatement, following Meranda’s resignation, has sparked debates about the stability of the Assembly and whether due process was followed.
Under the law, removing a legislative leader requires strict compliance with constitutional procedures, including securing a two-thirds majority vote as stated in Section 92(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution.
This case could shed light on the delicate balance between legislative independence and judicial oversight, particularly when it comes to internal disciplinary actions and the influence of politics on legislative processes.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com