The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday voided the suspension of the Senator representing the Borno South Senatorial District, Mohammed Ndume.
The Senate had through a letter, dated March 30, 2017, suspended Ndume for six months.
Delivering the judgment in a suit filed by Ndume to challenge his suspension, Justice Babatunde Quadri, ordered Ndume’s reinstatement and directed the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and the Senate to ensure prompt payment of the senator’s outstanding salaries and allowances for the period he was illegally suspended.
Justice Quadri described the senator’s suspension as “an exhibition of lawlessness” on the part of the Senate.
He said it was unlawful on the part of the Senate leadership to have suspended Ndume in the first place.
But the judge rejected Ndume’s prayer for an award of N500m as general, exemplary and aggravated damages over his suspension from the Senate since March 30.
While declaring Ndume’s suspension unlawful, the judge urged members of the Senate, particularly its leadership, to “hold sacrosanct, their Standing Orders, Rule of Law and by extension, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The judge said Ndume’s suspension was done in violation of sections 68 and 69 of the Constitution and Article 13(1) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
The court set aside the purported suspension as contained in the Senate’s letter of March 30, 2017.
It resolved in Ndume’s favour questions 2, 3 and 4, which were in relation to whether the suspension was not unlawful and a violation of the plaintiff’s rights and whether Ndume was not entitled to be reinstated.
He ruled, “Questions 2, 3 and 4 are hereby resolved in favour of the plaintiff, while question 1 is not determined because I did not consider the issue of breach of Section 39 as I found doing so unnecessary in the circumstances. Consequently, reliefs 2, 3 and 4 are granted.
“The suspension of the plaintiff is hereby declared illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.
“The purported suspension contained in the letter of March 30, 2017, is hereby set aside.
“The first and second defendants (the Senate and Saraki) are hereby directed to pay the plaintiff his outstanding salaries and allowances forthwith.
“However, relief 5 on the issue of damages is hereby refused because I hope this will facilitate reconciliation in the Senate between the plaintiff and other members of the Senate and bring peace to our nascent democracy and all senators will hold sacrosanct their standing order, rule of law by extension the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The judgment was delivered in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/551/2017, which Ndume filed to challenge his suspension for 90 legislative days.
The Senate had, via a letter dated March 30, 2017, suspended Ndume for six months for not “conducting due diligence” before filing a petition against the Senate President and the lawmaker representing Kogi West Senatorial District, Dino Melaye.
Ndume had urged the Senate to investigate the allegation that an armoured Range Rover car reportedly worth $298,000 seized by the Nigeria Customs Service allegedly belonged to Saraki.
Ndume had argued in a suit that his suspension was intended by the Senate leadership to get back at him for merely raising questions about issues relating to the conduct of “privileged individuals” in the Senate.
He noted that fellow legislators, who made similar observations in the past were neither suspended nor penalised as was done to him under the Saraki-led Senate.
Meanwhile, Ndume has said he will not be surprised but disappointed if the Senate appeals against the Federal High Court judgment that nullified his suspension.
While briefing journalists in Abuja on Friday, the lawmaker said what the Senate considered as his offence was not one that attracts suspension in the Senate Standing Rules.
He also noted that the maximum duration during which a lawmaker could be suspended is 14 days.
Stating that the Senate had written him to resume on Wednesday, he, however, said Friday’s judgment had vindicated him on the argument that his suspension was wrong in the first place.
He said, “My suspension was not right in the first place. I did not do anything to warrant my suspension. If it is vindictiveness or vengeance, then an appeal on the declaratory judgment would now prove that it is vindictiveness.
“Otherwise, something that you were not supposed to do — that’s what the court says — and it is a declaratory judgment; if they appeal, I will not be surprised, but I will be disappointed.
“Even though I have already spent my suspension time, I did that not because of my person, no; I did it because of the institution. Some people cannot, just because they were selected or elected as one among equals to lead the institution, take advantage of or abuse the process.”
No comments
Post a Comment