The Lagos State High Court has dismissed an application seeking a change of counsel representing the Lagos State House of Assembly in the suit filed by the reinstated Speaker of the House, Rt. Hon. Mudashiru Obasa, who is challenging his initial impeachment.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Monday, the court maintained that Femi Falana (SAN) remained the competent and duly authorised counsel to represent the House of Assembly, the first defendant in the case.
The judge added that the suit filed by Olalekan Onafeko challenging his suspension as the Clerk of the House of Assembly, at the National Industrial Court on Lagos, was yet to be determined, and that facts in the substantive suit filed by Obasa have been raised in the present application which it cannot delve into at this stage.
The lead counsel who was seeking to take over from Falana, Olusola Idowu (SAN), had earlier argued that the House has the inherent right to change counsel at any time and that there is an order of the National Industrial Court Lagos ordering the reinstatement of the suspended clerk, Olalekan Onafeko, who briefed a new legal team to represent the House.
But, Falana said he hasn’t been debriefed, adding that the Industrial Court has since denied ordering the reinstatement of Mr Onafeko as Clerk of the House.
The court also struck out the applications of the 1st, as well as 3rd to 35th defendants seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal.
The court is currently hearing other pending applications.
The Court has also reserved judgement in the suit filed by the reinstated speaker of the House, who is challenging the legality of the January 13, 2025 proceedings that led to his initial removal from office as Speaker.
Justice Yetunde Pinheiro, after listening to several preliminary objections by various counsels representing the defendants, said the date to deliver the judgement and rulings will be communicated to the parties in due course.
Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN), who represents the claimant (Obasa), urged the Court to assume jurisdiction to hear the matter. He argued that the House was in recess at the time the lawmakers convened illegally on January 13 without informing either the Speaker or the majority leader who has the powers to reconvene any session during recess.
But, Femi Falana (SAN) whose legal authority to represent the House of Assembly was earlier affirmed by the court on Monday, opposed the suit brought by way of Originating Summons.
He said the later proceedings of March 3 which saw the reelection of Mr Obasa as speaker had overtaken the earlier proceedings.
One of the lead counsels representing the third to the 35th defendants, Olu Daramola (SAN) in his arguments said the removal of the speaker was an internal affair of the House which the courts cannot interfere in. He added that the proceedings of January 13 were valid, having been held in the Assembly and the decision taken to remove the speaker was taken by more than the constitutional requirement of a two-third majority of the members.
The lead counsel representing the 36th to the 40th defendants, who are in support of the claimant’s action, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), said the January 13 sitting was done in clear violation of the Rules governing the House of Assembly, which empower the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the case.
In the preliminary objections of the first defendant, Mr Falana argued that the speaker’s action should be dismissed by the Court as it was instituted without a pre-action notice known to law issued in the House of Assembly.
He also contended that the House has the right to appoint and remove the speaker and other principal officers of the House without the court’s interference.
He added that by virtue of his reelection as speaker of the House, and Mojisola Meranda being restored to her previous position of Deputy Speaker on March 3, the case has become mere academic exercise.
