Jonathan still recognise me as Speaker, Tambuwal tells court

►The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, yesterday, refused to summon the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Suleiman Abba to appear before it in person to explain why he ordered his men to deny the Speaker ‎of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, access into the premises of the National Assembly.

►Tambuwal and the All Progressives Congress, APC, had in an ex-parte application they filed yesterday, urged the court to compel the IGP to appear and show cause why he should not be committed to prison for contempt of the order the court made on November 7, directing all the parties to maintain status quo.

The applicants insisted that the IGP, by restricting the the Speaker from gaining entry into the National Assembly on November 20, acted in manners and ways that showed disrespect to the court.

The plaintiffs equally prayed the court to grant them leave to serve the IGP the order directing him to show cause and all other processes in the matter by substituted means, to wit, publication in two National Dailies.

While refusing the ex-parte application which was moved yesterday by counsel to the plaintiffs, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, ordered that the IGP should be put on notice of the case against him to enable him to prepare his defence.

It will be recalled that sequel to barricade of the House of Reps complex by armed policemen at the behest of the IGP, members of the House loyal to the embattled Speaker, resorted to climbing the National Assembly gate to enter inside the premises.

‎Addressing the court through his team of lawyers comprising 10 Senior Advocates of Nigeria and 69 lawyers, Tambuwal, told the court that President Goodluck Jonathan is still recognizing him as the Speaker of the House of Reps.

He told the court that the Presidency wrote to him in his capacity as the Speaker of the House of Reps, requesting for his presence at the swearing-in ceremony of the new Chief Justice of Nigeria. He also adduced a copy of the said letter ‎as ‘Exhibit L3′.

In a 29-paragraphed affidavit he filed before the court, Tambuwal, further averred that the Presidency also wrote him as the Speaker, requesting that a member of the House of Reps to be part of the President’s entourage for an overseas engagement. The letter was marked as ‘‎Exhibit L4′.

“That sometime after November 17 when this suit came up last for hearing, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, wrote to him (1st Applicant) in his capacity as the Speaker of the House of Reps to appeal to him to convene the House to consider an issue of urgent national importance as it relates to the Emergency ‎Rule in three North Eastern State of Nigeria.

“That pursuant to the request of the President, he (1st Applicant) in his capacity as the Speaker of the 3rd defendant, urgently reconvened the House for a special session to determine the issue of the Emergency Rule in the affected North Eastern States.

“On the 20th day of November, 2014, the 1st plaintiff was harassed with an intention to deny him access into the premises of the National Assembly to perform his lawful duty as the Speaker of the 3rd Defendant in this suit by officers of the Nigerian Police Force on the instruction of Suleiman Abba, Esq, contrary ‎to the undertaking of the 5th Defendant’s counsel and in total disobedience to the order of this Honourable Court.

“That during an interface with a committee of the House of Reps on the 26th November, 2014, the 5th Defendant boasted he would not recognise the 1st Applicant as Speaker of the House of Reps despite his knowledge of the court order directing that status quo be maintained. The steps taken by Suleiman ‎Abba, was widely reported in several newspapers, copies of which are attached hereto and marked ‘Exhibit L5 series’.

“That there is no law, and/or order of this court, or any other court in Nigeria that gave Suleiman Abba or the 5th Defendant the power to give the directive to the officers of the Nigerian Police to restrain or prevent him (1st Applicant) from sitting as the Speaker of the 3rd Defendant.

“That the said order of this court directing status quo to be maintained is valid and is still subsisting till date and there is no appeal against same by any of the parties to this suit or even non-parties.

“That I know as a fact that the acts of Suleiman Abba and the 5th Defendant on the 20th and 26th of November, 2014 are clear flagrant disobedience of the order of this Honourable Court.

“That I know as a fact that Suleiman Abba, Esq (IGP) is a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. That I know as a fact that the order of this court is binding on all the parties in this suit irrespective of their positions just as it also binds non-parties”.

‎Counsel to the IGP, Mr. Ade Okeaya-Inneh, SAN, had opposed the ex-parte application against his client, accusing Tambuwal and the APC of attempting to move the court to sit on appeal over its own ruling on November 7.

Okeaya-Inneh had on that date, undertook to the court that his client would not do anything to temper with the ‘Res’ of the matter, a situation that led the court to order the maintenance of status quo by all the parties.

On its part, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and its Chairman Alhaji Adamu Mu’Azu, yesterday, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.

The party equally urged the court to determine it’s preliminary objection first before delving into the substantive matter.

In another development, five persons comprising two Local Government Council Chairman and two lawmakers from Sokoto State, yesterday, applied to be joined as co-defendants in the suit.

Those that sought to be joined yesterday were Hon.Bala Konani (‎Chairman Keane LGC), Hon. Sambo Bello Modo ( Chairman of Tambuwal LG) for themselves and on behalf of the constituents of Keble/ Tambuwal Federal Constituency.

Others were Hon. Abdulssamad Ibrahim Dasuki (Tambuwal East Constituency), Hon. Suleiman Hantsi ( Tambuwal West) and Hon. Shuaibu Umar (Kebbe Constituency).

Their application was opposed by Tambuwal who urged the court to refuse them from being joined in his suit.

‎PDP however urged the court to grant their joinder-applications and allow them into the case as interested parties.

PDP through its counsel Mr.Yunus Ustaz ‎Usman also prayed the court to order accelerated hearing of the matter.

Whereas Justice Mohammed ‎yesterday adjourned ruling on the joinder applications to December 1, he equally fixed December 3 to hear Tambuwal application for the IGP to be summoned over alleged contempt.

‎Tambuwal had in his suit, told that court that the defendants, “have the propensity to act with impunity and in total disregard for due process‎”.

He pleaded that only a quick intervention of the court could stop the “evil plot” against him.

Besides, he alleged that the defendants, “in further demonstration of their unconstitutional conduct”, connived with the Acting Inspector General of Police, Sulaiman Abba, and withdrew all the security details attached to him as the Speaker of the House, a development he said has exposed him to bodily harm.

He is therefore praying the court ‎for “An order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants/ Respondents herein either by themselves or agents, proxies or otherwise howsoever from taking any steps or further steps to abrogate or diminish or take away or interfere with or infringe the 1st plaintiff’s rights and privileges as the Hon Speaker and as a member of the 3rd Defendant/ Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction before this court.

“An order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants/ Respondents herein either by themselves or agents, proxies or otherwise howsoever from taking any steps ‎to remove the 1st plaintiff /applicant from office as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant or in any manner whatsoever taking any steps or further steps to abrogate or diminish the 1st plaintiff’s rights and privileges as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction before this court.

“An order of interim injunction restraining the 6th defendant from accepting any nomination of candidates or otherwise organizing a bye-election for the purpose of replacing he 1st plaintiff or taking over his seat as the Hon Speaker ‎and member of the 3rd defendant, pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction before this Hon Court.

“An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th and 7th defendants, their agents, servants, members or whosoever act for them or in their names or at their instruction from removing, discussing the removal of, or attempting to discuss the removal of the 1st plaintiff as the Hon Speaker and member of the 3rd defendant, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the plaintiffs and pending before this court.

As well as, “An order of interim order of mandatory injunction directing the 5th and 7th defendants, their agents or servants to restore to the 1st plaintiff his security details and all other rights, benefits and privileges appurtenant to the 1st applicant as member of the Hon. Speaker of the 3rd defendant pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory injunction before the court”.

In a five paragraphed affidavit deposed to by one Ejura Patience Ochimana, Tambuwal accused the PDP, Mu’Azu and the Deputy Speaker of the House, Ihedioha of conspiring to remove him from office.

He said: “That when the 1st plaintiff became a member of the 2nd plaintiff, the 1st, 2nd, 5th and the 7th defendants began to intimidate, harass, and use self help against him; and they purported to declare his seat as member of the House of Representatives vacant.

“That in further demonstration of their unconstitutional conduct, the 5th defendant withdrew all his security details and thereafter issued a press statement justifying the said withdrawal by citing provisions of the constitution.

“That in particular the 1st and 2nd defendants have been threatening to use their contacts to ensure that the seat of the 1st plaintiff in the 3rd defendant is declared vacant so that the 6th defendant would organize a bye-election to fill it.

“That the 1st plaintiff received and is receiving threats that the 1st- 5th defendants will cause the 3rd defendant to remove him from the office of Speaker because of his membership of the 2nd plaintiff and the 5th defendant issued a statement in that direction after he withdrew security details of the 1st plaintiff.

“That on the 28th day of October 2014, the 1st and 2nddefendants threatened to forcibly remove the 1st plaintiff from office as the Speaker of the 3rddefendant. That on the 30th day of October 2014, the 3rd and 4th defendants began to strategize on how to unlawfully remove the 1st plaintiff from office as the Speaker of the 3rd defendant.

“That on the 30th day of October 2014, the 5th defendant at the behest of the 1st -4th defendants withdrew his security details thereby exposing him to danger of bodily harm all in their bid to forcibly remove him from office and the 5th defendant issued press statement to that effect.

“That in the circumstances, the applicants are and have become apprehensive that the 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 4th , 5th and the 7th defendants will use unlawful means to make good their threats if this Hon. Court does not intervene to stop them.

“That the Originating Summons pending before this court raises serious and fundamental questions of constitutional importance. That the plaintiffs/applicants undertake to pay damages should their claims turn out to be frivolous.

“That despite the fact of the pendency of the case the defendants herein acting in concert and to sabotage the pending Originating Summons, and in total disregard for due process have concluded plan to forcefully and illegally remove the 1st plaintiff and to replace him.

“There is an urgent need to restore to the 1st plaintiff all his rights and privileges including his security details which were illegally and unconstitutionally withdrawn even when the 1st plaintiff remains as the Hon. Speaker and a member of the 3rd defendant.

“That the 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th and 7th defendants are planning to illegally and unconstitutionally reconvene the sitting of the 3rd defendant before 3/12/2014, the date the sitting of the 3rd defendant, was lawfully adjourned to, without following due process for the sole purpose of discussing and perfecting the forceful remove of the 1st plaintiff before the case of the plaintiff is heard and determined.

“That the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th defendants have no regards for due process unless this Hon Court intervenes”, he added.