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, Rt—Hon. Mudashiru Obasa is challenging his removal.
t the resumed hearing of the case on Monday, the court maintained that Femi Falana (SAN) remains the competent and duly authorised counsel to represent the House of Assembly as the first defendant.
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, Lagos, is yet to be determined and that facts in the substantive suit filed by Mr Obasa, have been raised in the present application which it cannot delve into at this stage.
The lead counsel, Olusola Idowu (SAN), who was seeking to take over from Mr Falana, 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 Mr Falana said he hadn’t been debriefed, adding that the Industrial Court has since denied ordering Mr Onafeko’s reinstatement.
The court also struck out the applications of the 1st and 3rd to 35th defendants seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal.
The court is currently hearing other pending applications.
The Court has also reserved judgment in the suit filed by the reinstated speaker of the House, who is challenging the legality of the January 13, 2025, proceeding that led to his initial removal.
Justice Yetunde Pinheiro, after listening to several preliminary objections from various counsels representing the defendants, said the date to deliver the judgment and rulings would be communicated to the parties in due course.
Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN), who represents the claimant, Mr Obasa, urged the Court to assume jurisdiction in hearing the matter.
He argued that the House was in recess when the lawmakers convened illegally on January 13 without informing either the Speaker or the majority leader, who can 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 originating summons.
He said the later proceedings of March 3, which saw Mr Obasa’s reelection as speaker, had overtaken the earlier proceedings.
In his arguments, Olu Daramola (SAN), one of the lead counsels representing the third to the 35th defendants, said removing the speaker is an internal affair of the House, which the courts cannot interfere with. He added that the proceedings of January 13 were valid, having been held in the Assembly, and the decision to remove the speaker was taken by more than the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds 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 empowers the court to assume jurisdiction to hear the case.
In the preliminary objections of the first defendant, Mr Falana argued that the Court should dismiss the speaker’s action as it was instituted without a pre-action notice known to law issued in the House of Assembly.
He also contends that the House can appoint and remove the speaker and other principal officers without the court’s interference.
He added that this case has become academic due to his reelection as speaker and Mojisola Meranda’s restoration to her previous position of Deputy Speaker on March 3.
