The Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has declared the removal of the re-instated Speaker of the State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the court also nullified the proceedings and resolutions of the House held on January 13, 2025, during which Obasa was ousted.
Trial judge, Justice Yetunde Pinheiro also awarded N500,000 as damages for the unlawful and illegal removal of Hon. Obasa and for the psychological embarrassment he suffered as a result of the illegal removal.
Obasa had filed a suit against the House of Assembly and the newly appointed Speaker at the time, Mojisola Meranda, to challenge the legality of his removal.
In the suit, filed on February 12, 2025, by his counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Afolabi Fashanu, Obasa argued that his removal by 36 lawmakers occurred while the Assembly was on recess and while he was out of the country.
He urged the court to declare the process unlawful, arguing that the sitting was invalid as it was held without the Speaker’s authority or any formal delegation of power.
In a judgment which lasted about three hours, Justice Pinheiro first dismissed the preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit. The court held that non-compliance with pre-action notices does not make the suit inactive.
On the objection that the court does not have the jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the State House of Assembly, the judge held that, “ a court of law can intervene where the provisions of the constitution have not been met during any proceedings of the house of assembly”.
Citing the cases of Usman v Kaduna State House of Assembly, Agbaso Vs Imo State, and Rivers State House of Assembly Vs Government of Rivers State, the judge further held that in cases where there is a lacuna in the provisions of the constitution, the court can intervene.
The court noted that in deserving instances it has also intervened when the house rules have not been properly followed and where fair hearing has not been ensured.
In the present case, the court agreed with the claimant, Hon. Obasa, that the facts of the case are questions that the court can adjudicate upon.
The judge noted that the issues in question has to do with the constitutionality of the procedure of the Lagos House of Assembly on the day the claimant was removed, and especially if due process was followed.
Relying on the rules of the House of Assembly, the court took view that no person other than the leaders of the House have the capacity to write to the Speaker to convene a Meeting of the assembly, and the chief whip is not a leader.
The court also stated that by the rules of the Lagos State House of Assembly, there exists a hierarchy under Order 7.
Rule 30 of the Rules which relates to the authority of the chief whip also does not confer on him such authority.
The court held that every step taken towards reconvening the meeting of the house after it had adjourned indefinitely cannot stand and it is inconsequential that majority of members voted for the meeting.
In the final analysis, the court held that the defendants cannot validly remove the speaker without complying with order 2, Rule 9 of the Lagos State House of Assembly Rules and the judge therefore set aside the purported sitting of the members of the House, the purported removal of the claimant as the speaker and the purported installation of the 2nd Defendant, Hon. Mojisola Meranda as the speaker.
