 representing the Lagos State House of Assembly.){kind=link}
Obasa’s substantive suit facts had been raised in the present application, but he could not delve into them at this time.
The Lagos State High Court denied the motion to remove the counsel, Femi Falana (SAN) representing the Lagos State House of Assembly. This decision was made in the case that was brought up by the reinstated Speaker of the House, Rt. Hon. Mudashiru Obasa.
During the hearing of the case on Monday, the court held that Falana continued to be competent and duly authorized counsel to represent the House of Assembly, which was the first defendant in the case.
The judge said that the suit that Olalekan Onafeko had filed at the National Industrial Court in Lagos, challenging his suspension as the Clerk of the House of Assembly, had not yet been decided. Additionally, the judge stated that Obasa’s substantive suit facts had been raised in the present application, but he could not delve into them at this time.
It was earlier argued by Olusola Idowu (SAN), the lead counsel who was seeking to take over from Falana, that the House possesses the inherent right to change counsel at any time and that there is an order from the National Industrial Court Lagos ordering the reinstatement of the suspended clerk, Olalekan Onafeko, who briefed a new legal team to represent the House.
According to Falana, he has not been debriefed, and he also mentioned that the Industrial Court has rejected directing Mr Onafeko to be reinstated as Clerk of the House since the decision was made.
The court rejected the motions of the first defendant, as well as those of the third through the thirty-fifth defendants, who were seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal. At this time, the court is considering further applications that are still pending.
Furthermore, the reinstated House speaker is suing to challenge the legitimacy of the events that led to his initial expulsion from office on January 13, 2025, and the court has also deferred ruling in this case.
After hearing many preliminary objections from the defendants’ solicitors, Justice Yetunde Pinheiro stated that the parties will be notified of the date of judgement and rulings in due course.
In his argument on behalf of Obasa, the claimant, Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN) asked the court to presume jurisdiction and consider the case.
On January 13, parliamentarians unlawfully gathered without telling the Speaker or the majority leader, who have the authority to restart any session during recess, according to his argument.
However, Femi Falana (SAN), whose legal capacity to represent the House of Assembly was recognized by the court on Monday, challenged the Originating Summons suit.
He said the March 3 processes that reelected Mr. Obasa as speaker had trumped the prior ones.
Olu Daramola (SAN), one of the lead counsels for the third to 35th defendants, argued that the House is responsible for speaker removal, not the courts. He stated that the January 13 Assembly procedures were lawful because more than a two-third majority of members voted to dismiss the speaker.
Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), lead counsel for the 36th to 40th defendants, who support the claimant, said the January 13 sitting violated the House of Assembly Rules, which give the court jurisdiction.
Mr. Falana contended in the first defendant’s preliminary objections that the speaker’s action should be dismissed because it was instituted without a House of Assembly pre-action notice.
He also argued that the House can appoint and dismiss the speaker and other key officers without court intervention.
He stated that the matter is now moot as he was re-elected speaker of the house and Mojisola Meranda was reinstated to her former role as deputy speaker on March 3.