ANAYO EZUGWU examines the leadership crisis rocking the Lagos State House of Assembly and the failure of the speaker, Mudashiru Obasa, to reconvene the House one month after adjourning proceedings indefinitely
Despite tPresident Bola Tinubu’s intervention, the leadership crisis bedevilling the Lagos State House of Assembly is far from being resolved as combatants in the crisis are back in their trenches as lack of trust has undermined the peace effort.
The House has not called a sitting since March 3, in what looks like a pause in the functions of the legislative arm of the state. At the height of the crisis, President Tinubu on March 12, met with all the 40 lawmakers of the House and settled the grievances among the lawmakers, particularly between Obasa and his deputy, Mojisola Meranda.
The President ordered Obasa to withdraw the court case he instituted against the lawmakers over his removal even as he enjoined the lawmakers to cooperate with the speaker for peace to reign. Obasa is yet to withdraw the lawsuit as instructed by the President, a development that has sparked fears of elongation of the crisis.
The suit
The speaker is challenging his removal by 36 members of the House at the Lagos High Court. His counsel, Afolabi Fasanu, (SAN), argued that despite Obasa’s re-election, the lawsuit remains relevant.
He maintained that the speaker is contesting allegations in his removal notice, ranging from fraud and high-handedness to abuse of office and gross misconduct because he was denied fair hearing.
Obasa is contesting the constitutionality of the Lagos State House of Assembly’s sitting and proceedings during a recess, which occurred without the speaker reconvening the House or delegating authority.
The suit addresses the constitutionality of the Lagos State House of Assembly’s proceedings on January 13, when Obasa was allegedly impeached as speaker. The speaker’s application presents nine grounds, including interpretations of various sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), as well as the Rules and Standing Orders of the Lagos State House of Assembly.
The claimant seeks the court’s interpretation of Sections 36, 90, 92(2) (c), 101, and 311 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), about Order V, Rule 18(2), and Order II, Rule 9(1) (ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)(viii) of the Lagos State House of Assembly Rules, which have constitutional status. Obasa is pressing further with the case as an insurance backup in case the lawmakers attempt to impeach him again.
He does not trust them either because he has made overtures to them individually and collectively without success. This means they are still adamant in their stance against him. So, for him, the lawsuit is ostensibly designed to protect him against any possible impeachment. Hence, he is not likely to withdraw the lawsuit.
The lawmakers had on January 13, accused Obasa of gross misconduct and poor leadership, including highhandedness and disregard for members of the House. The lawmakers also accused him of intimidation and suppression of and inciting members against one another, mismanagement of funds and lack of time transparency in his management of Assembly funds.
On March 17, Justice Yetunde Pinheiro of the Lagos State High Court, where the case is being heard, reserved judgement in the suit filed by Obasa. The judge heard several preliminary objections by various counsel representing the defendants and said the date to deliver the judgment and rulings would be communicated to parties in due course.
Doubt over withdrawal of suit
Speaking on the development, former chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos State, Otunba Henry Ajomale, said the crisis is about to end, revealing that Obasa was aggrieved and went to court to challenge his removal, saying it was within his rights to go to court to challenge that.
Ajomale said President Tinubu rightly intervened in the crisis given that the Assembly is his own making, explaining that having Intervened the hitherto lingering crisis would end soon, assuming that in the next sitting of the Assembly, everything would be solved.
“Very soon, in the next sitting, you will see the difference. Somebody is aggrieved and he went to court. It is his right to go to court. And it is now our duty since Mr. President intervened and rightly too because this is his own making. He will not allow it to create a bitter problem. “And that is why he has to intervene. And everything is back to normal now.
Now that he (Obasa) has been returned, I believe that the case will be withdrawn from court. In no time, perhaps at the next sitting, you will see the difference,” Ajomale said.
The law specifies the number of days states Assembly and the National Assembly must sit annually. If an adjournment disrupts this requirement, it becomes inconsistent with the constitution
Reacting to Ajomale’s claim, counsel to Obasa, Chief Afolabi Fashanu (SAN), dismissed speculations that his client would be dropping the suit against the erstwhile speaker, Meranda and other members of the Assembly. He insisted that his team was awaiting the court judgement on the matter and there was no going back. “We are just waiting for the judgement.
We don’t know when yet, the court said it will communicate it to us,” Fashanu said. When asked if Obasa was still considering withdrawing the suit, he said: “We have concluded. You’re twisting the hand of the clock back. We have concluded arguments; that one does not arise again. He’s not withdrawing, we have concluded.”
Lawyers differ on indefinite adjournment
Despite the ongoing legal fireworks, lawyers are divided over the legality or otherwise of the continued indefinite adjournment. New Telegraph had on March 7 reported the legality of Obasa’s indefinite adjournment of the House, with senior lawyers sharing their insights on whether such an action is lawful and how long a speaker can suspend legislative sittings. Dr Abiodun Layonu (SAN), said:
“It’s not a legal issue, but an internal house matter.” He argued that indefinite adjournment is primarily a procedural issue for the House, not necessarily a legal violation. The question of the speaker adjourning indefinitely is not a legal matter, it is a decision for the House of Assembly. “If the majority of members disagree, they have the power to call for a vote to overturn it.
The speaker’s decision does not always stand unchallenged. The House has the authority and procedure to revoke it if necessary.” On the question of how long a speaker can adjourn, Layonu noted that the constitution mandates a minimum number of sitting days per year. “I don’t have the exact number off-hand, it’s around 180 days or so.
Members must attend sessions, or they risk losing their seats. The constitution provides guidelines to ensure members fulfil their legislative duties.” Another SAN, Chief Solo Akuma, emphasised that while a speaker has the authority to adjourn, it cannot be done in a way that infringes on constitutional provisions regarding legislative sitting days.
His words: “The law specifies the number of days states Assembly and the National Assembly must sit annually. If an adjournment disrupts this requirement, it becomes inconsistent with the constitution. I can’t recall the exact number, but it is clearly stated in the constitution.”
Akuma clarified that an adjournment is only considered indefinite when no date is fixed, but that does not necessarily mean the House will remain inactive for an extended period. If the speaker adjourns without setting a resumption date, it may appear indefinite.
“However, he could recall members within a short period. The House also has mechanisms, through its rules, to convene sittings even without the speaker’s directive.” Kunle Adegoke (SAN) maintained that “failure to set a definite resumption date raises concerns.”
He warned that leaving the House adjourned indefinitely without setting a clear time frame could be problematic. “Without specifying when the House will reconvene, it raises legal and procedural concerns.
The speaker must have valid grounds for such a decision. If attendance falls below one-third of the members, section 96 of the Constitution allows for adjournment due to a lack of quorum.
However, in this case, quorum does not seem to be an issue.” Adegoke also noted that while the constitution may not explicitly limit the duration of an adjournment, prolonged inaction could have consequences.
“If the speaker fails to reconvene the House within a reasonable time, it could lead to a crisis. The House cannot remain in limbo. If the speaker attempts to render the legislature inactive for too long, it could even become grounds for his removal.”
