As defecting APC lawmakers call for judge’s head

THE historic move of 37 members of the House of Representatives from the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressive Congress (APC) on December 18, 2013 has continuing to generate bad blood. Then, of the defecting lawmakers, Honourable Umar Bature, quickly retraced his steps and returned to the PDP, reducing the number of defecting lawmakers to 36. The latest is the petition of the 36 defecting lawmakers to the National Judicial Council (NJC), the employer of Justice Adeniyi Ademola, that it should investigate him for judicial misconduct. It will be recalled that, ahead of the lawmakers’ defection, the defecting lawmakers had secured a court order stopping the PDP from declaring their seats vacant. The PDP had also approached the court in January, seeking to restrain the House from altering the composition of its leadership, a case that was assigned to Justice Ademola. However, the judgement of the court on the matter had since continue to generate tension in the polity, especially from the opposition APC, which alleged that the PDP procured the judgement. Justice Ademola, it will be recalled, reportedly said that the lawmakers no longer had any business in the legislature, having moved to another political party while their tenure had yet to expire. He had also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the defectors from effecting any leadership change in the House, and he was also reported as saying that “Having perused the arguments of counsel and the constitutional provisions, it is clear and unambiguous that the defendants were sponsored by the PDP and won the election on its platform. It is also the court’s opinion that their tenure has not expired and there is no division in the PDP.” Continuing, the judge had also ruled that, “The defendants are, therefore, not competent to vote or contribute to any proceedings in the House of Representatives. An order of perpetual injunction is, hereby, ordered, restraining them from altering or attempting to change the leadership of the House of Reps.” Before Justice Ademola’s April 1 judgement, Justice Evoh Chukwu of another Federal High Court Abuja, had ruled on October 2013 that there was no division in PDP. However, one of the grounds adduced to by the 37 members of the PDP that defected to APC was that there was crisis in the ruling party, hence their subsequent defection. Justice Ademola that his decision was informed by the court’s interpretation of Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution, which reads: “A member of the Senate or the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if –being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected; provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.” The embattled lawmakers had since instituted an appeal against the ruling of the High court at the Appeal Court. While the appeal was still pending, the aggrieved lawmakers, in their petition to the NJC, asked it to probe the judge for acts of “judicial misconduct” while adjudicating on suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/4/2014 filed by the PDP to challenge the defection of its former members in the House. A copy of the eight-page petition revealed that the document signed by the affected 37 APC Reps was submitted to the NJC on May 13, 2014. The petition cited grounds of “misconduct” against Justice Ademola. They are: overruling superior courts in issuing preservatory order while jurisdiction was being challenged; pronouncements on the substantive suit – concerning vacation of members’ seats – before another judge and not before Justice Ademola. The thirty-six lawmakers expressed suspicion that Justice Ademola granted “the application for injunction as made by the PDP when in fact there were preliminary objections against the jurisdiction of the court.” The petitioners claimed that the suit only sought to stop members of the House of Representatives who defected from PDP to APC from changing the leadership of the House and expressed surprise that the judge veered off to cases not canvassed before him. “In principle, judges must not ordinarily fiddle suo motu into matters not canvassed before them. However, because this judge was so ready to rule against the defendants for reasons best known to him, he became even more political than the plaintiff. The plaintiff nowhere sought for a relief under S. 68 (1) (g) of the constitution. Indeed, their lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), in open court said that the matter had nothing to do with S. 68 (1) (g) of the constitution...”, the lawmakers said. The APC lawmakers further queried: “How would a judge rule that a political party has locus to stop a legislative house from carrying out its internal affairs; that a legislative house would be restrained perpetually from voting somehow or from changing its leadership? The judgment of Justice Ademola and orders he made and the passing comments were clearly politically motivated and did not demonstrate legal jurisprudential erudition.,” the lawmakers alleged. As expected, the NJC will soon commence investigation into the petition of the petitioners, and the outcome of its investigation will surely impact on the career of the High Court judge involved.[Nigerian Tribune]