Tambuwal: Jonathan Shops for Pliant Judge as Two Others Turn Down Request to Hear Suit Against Speaker
The presidency has began the search for a pliant judge who will hear a suit and give a ruling on removal of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal.
Since the speaker defected to the Al Progressives Congress on Tuesday, President Jonathan and his men have been plotting several moves to remove the speaker. Part of that plot is to get a judge who will do the bidding of the president and deliver a ruling in his favour.
Already, two judges have declined hearing a fresh application to sack the Speaker for fear on coming under the hammer of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
The judges were said to have claimed that it would amount to abuse of court process if the application was entertained since a similar suit on defection was already before a Federal High Court judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed.
Investigation by our correspondent revealed that anti-Tambuwal forces in the Presidency had been pushing for a fresh suit to get a declaratory judgment against the Speaker to vacate his office.
A highly-placed source, who spoke in confidence, said: “There is a plot to file a fresh application at the court to declare Tambuwal’s seat vacant in the light of Section 68(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution.
“But two judges have declined pressure to entertain the new application because it would amount to abuse of court process since Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court is already handling a similar matter.
“The judges claimed that if they go ahead to consider the application, the NJC might sanction them.
“I can tell you that the anti-Tambuwal forces have run into a roadblock. The only option they have is to consolidate any fresh suit with the existing one in line with Order 11 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009.
The order says: “Where two or more matters are pending in the court and it appears to the Court that (a) same question of law or fact arises in both or all of them; or (b) the rights to relief claimed therein are in respect of or arise out of the same or similar transaction or series of transactions; or (c) the interest of justice of the trial so demands, the Court may order that the causes or matters be consolidated on such terms as it thinks just and the Court shall give such directions as may be necessary with respect to the hearing of the causes or matters so consolidated.”
Do not hesitate to leave your opinion in the comment section below.
To contact Abusidiqu.com for Article Submission and Advertisement or General inquiry, send a mail to firstname.lastname@example.org