The National Assembly court case challenges Kingsley Chinda’s removal claims, urging dismissal of his lawsuit over alleged political ties with Minister Nyesom Wike.
The National Assembly court case challenging Kingsley Chinda’s removal from office has taken a new twist as the legislature and its officials ask the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss the suit for lack of merit.
Chinda, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, had filed the case to stop any attempt to unseat him, alleging that his position was being threatened due to his association with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike.
In their counterclaim, the National Assembly, the Clerk to the National Assembly, and the Clerk to the House of Representatives—listed as the 1st, 2nd, and 5th defendants—filed a memorandum of conditional appearance under protest.
The National Assembly court case was represented by Charles Yoila, Esq., leading six lawyers from the Department of Litigation and Counseling of the National Assembly.
Their defence, accompanied by a 10-paragraph statement sworn to by Hayatudeen Musa, urged the court to strike out their names from the suit.
The defendants argued that the House of Representatives’ standing orders already outline procedures for removing any principal officer.
However, they insisted there was no formal record or motion showing any effort to remove the plaintiff.
They added that they were not in a position to confirm claims that some minority party members traveled during the recess or that there was a majority decision to replace the leadership.
“There is no record of any move to remove the plaintiff as Minority Leader of the House of Representatives on grounds of political association or any alleged misconduct,” the defence stated.
They emphasized that the National Assembly court case is speculative, unfounded, and based on mere assumptions without supporting evidence.
Furthermore, the defendants contended that the plaintiff’s case failed to establish any reasonable cause of action against them. They argued that granting the injunction sought by Chinda would hinder the legislature’s ability to carry out its constitutional functions.
According to them, the court must respect the separation of powers and refrain from interfering in the internal operations of the legislative arm.
They also pointed out that the plaintiff failed to issue a pre-action notice, making the case procedurally defective.
The defence urged the court to strike out their names from the lawsuit, describing it as improper, lacking legal foundation, and devoid of substance. In addition, they demanded ₦1 million as the cost of defending what they described as an unnecessary and baseless litigation.
Legal analysts observing the National Assembly court case say its outcome could shape the boundaries between judicial oversight and legislative autonomy in Nigeria.
If dismissed, the ruling could reaffirm the independence of the legislature in managing its internal leadership matters. However, if upheld, it could establish new precedents allowing courts to intervene in parliamentary affairs where fundamental rights are alleged to be violated.
The National Assembly court case remains before the Federal High Court in Abuja, awaiting a ruling that will determine not only Kingsley Chinda’s fate as Minority Leader but also the constitutional relationship between Nigeria’s judiciary and its legislature.
More news at ireport247news
