Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja has said the allegation that the Senate’s Standing Rules 2015 was forged was internal to the Senate.
Justice Kolawole said the involvement of the police in the case amounted to the National Assembly allowing other arms of government to supervise or regulate its internal proceedings. He threatened to void the investigation’s report produced by the police.
The judge’s view is contained in a bench ruling he delivered at the resumed hearing of a suit by a member of the Senate, Gilbert Nnaji, challenging, among others, police involvement in the investigation of the allegation that the Senate’s Standing Rules 2015 was forged by some individuals in the National Assembly.
“My view is that in relation the instant suit, the allegation which relates to the alleged forgery of the Rules of the National Assembly is not an ordinary allegation which the court can approach with a pedantic mindset. It is so, because the issues as relating to the Senate Rules or Standing Orders are firstly the internal domestic matters.
“But where allegation of forgery is made, it is for the court to reflect deeply whether it is not an allegation which the Senate’s Committee on Rules and of its Ethics can validly investigate and, within its internal proceedings nullify any of its Standing Orders found to be irregular and, to also sanction any of its members that is found culpable. One of the sanctions is to recommend such a member or members to the defendants for prosecution.”
At the resumed hearing of the case yesterday, lawyers to the IGP and Attorney-General’s office, David Abuo and Taiwo Abidogun, did not comply with the court’s order to show cause, but filed separate notices of preliminary objection, challenging the plaintiff’s locus standi (right to sue), competence of the case and the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
Another lawyer, M. M. Osuma (SAN) informed the court that his client, a member of the Senate, Suleiman Hunkuyi(representing Kaduna North) has applied to be joined in the suit as a defendant.
Abuo and Abidogun, who said they were not averse to Hunkuyi’s motion, argued that it was proper for the court to first determine their objections and the joinder motion, before enquiring whether it was necessary for them to still comply with the order to show cause. They contended that once the court finds that the suit was incompetent, the need for the defendants to show cause becomes unnecessary.
Plaintiff’s lawyer, Peter Nwokolo said he was opposed to Hunkuyi’s motion and the position suggestion by defendants’ lawyers in relation to how the court should proceed. He urged the court to grant his client’s orders for interlocutory injunctions against the defendants on the ground that the defendants failed to show cause as ordered by the court.
Justice Kolawole consequently adjourned to September 8 for the hearing of Hunkuyi’s motion and all other pending applications. Further proceedings in the case will however be conducted by Justice Adeniyi Ademola, who will service as the court’s vacation judge from August 11.
Preliminary objection filed the existing defendants,” the judge said.
validly make orders in a case.
The judge however noted that before proceeding to hear a case, a court must be satisfied that the case before it is properly constituted in terms of parties. He added that whether or not that applicant (Hunkuyi) should be joined is not an issue on which the court can make a decision at this stage of the proceedings without taking arguments on the joinder application.
“While the court is required to accord the primacy of hearing to notices of preliminary objection filed by the defendants, the court is required to approach the said objection, especially in the light of the extant orders made on July 27, 2015, this court being one of the superior courts created pursuant to the provision of Section 6(5)(c) of the Constitution, it is by law, required to approach the challenge to jurisdiction from the point of view that it has jurisdiction, unless and until the contrary is shown.
“My view is that the notices of preliminary objections filed and the ground on which they were filed challenge the substratum of the plaintiff’s suit, but in view of the jurisprudential analysis I have made, that the jurisdiction of a superior court of record is presumed, will the filing of a notice of preliminary objection against a suit be a process within the contemplation of the provision of Order 26 Rules 13 and 14 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009?
“My answer is in the negative, because what was adjourned was a further consideration of the proceedings in relation to the ex-parte application which was neither granted nor outrightly refused when the 1st defendant was ordered to show cause.
“By filing a notice of preliminary objection, the 1st defendant has not shown cause. One would expect that the consequential order which the court should make will be in line with the submissions of the plaintiff’s counsel.
“Although I recognize the constitutional status of the 1st defendant pursuant to sections 214(10 and 215(1) of the Constitution as well as its statutory duties as spelt out in Section 4 of the Police Act. It is not the law that courts created pursuant to the Constitution are limited from granting an order restraining the 1st defendant from conducting investigation into any allegation of crime once a report of it is made to it.
“It is however an issue in which the court will exercise great caution perhaps, circumspection lest, the court may be erroneously perceived as exercise its judicial powers to inhibit the performance of the statutory duties of the 1st defendant and thereby shielding the suspect of the crime alleged from being investigated and possibly from being prosecuted.
“I will not make the orders which the plaintiff’s lawyer prayed for. But my position still remains that regardless of the outcome of the motion on notice for joinder, this court has and retains the jurisdiction to make orders to set aside the report which the 1st defendant may prepared in its investigation.
“And can exercise its judicial powers pursuant to Section 6(6)(a) and (b) of the Constitution to set aside the report even if a criminal charge has been preferred based on it, if the court comes to the decision that the 1st defendant, once it became aware of the pendency of the instant suit and the orders being sought in the motion on notice, ought not to carry on its statutory assignment without caution and due regard to what will be the outcome of the instant suit.
