The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) argued Monday that the decision by the Senate to suspend the Senator representing Delta Central Senatorial District, Ove Omo-Agege was not supported by any known law.
Malami equally contended that the suspension violated the right of the constituency represented by Senator Omo-Agege to participate in the country’s governance and to be so represented.
The AGF made his position on the issue public Monday at the hearing of the suit by the suspended Senator, challenging the legality of the Senate’s decision.
The Solicitor General of the Federation (SGF), Dayo Apata, who represented Malami said the AGF’s position in the case was informed by his constitutional responsibility as the defender and guardian of the Constitution
He argued that although the AGF was sued as a defendant, he has the right to address this court on the need to prevent the breach of constitutional provisions by the Senate.
Apata added: “In view of the position of the law, it is the 3rd defendant’s submission that the suspension of the plaintiff is not supported by law and should be set aside by this honourable court.
“As a Senator, the plaintiff represents his senatorial district, whose electorate, through him, participate in the governance and his suspension for a whole lot of 90 days amount to punishing an entire senatorial district for a period of 90 days and denying them participation in the governance of the country, which is a legal right.
“It is our submission that the suspension of the plaintiff for 90 legislative days without any legal backing is also an infringement of the rights of his people, who elected him to represent them in the Senate to participate in the governance of Nigeria, thus illegal and unconstitutional and we urge my Lord to so hold.”
Earlier, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Alex Iziyon (SAN) urged the court to nullify the steps taken by the Senate; including his client’s suspension by the Senate during the pendency of a suit he (Omo-Agege) filed against the plan to suspend him.
Iziyon said: “Under the consequential orders sought by the plaintiff, the court can nullify any other steps taken by the defendant during the pendency of this suit.
He added that the court has the power to “pull down what has been done in defiance of court’s proceedings”.
Relying on a number of court’s decision, prohibiting legislative houses from suspending legislators, Iziyon argued that the “this court has the power to undo what they have done.”
Lawyers to the 1st and 2nd defendants (the Senate and its President), Mahmoud Magaji (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Magaji argued that the cases cited by Izinyon were distinguishable from Omo-Agege’s case.
He noted that: “Exhibit MAM1 shows that the plaintiff is not an ordinary senator. He is a lawyer. In addition, he is a member of the committee that recommended his suspension.
“He is number 13 on the list of the members of the committee. He participated in the proceedings of the committee that recommended the suspension of other senators, particularly Senator Ali Ndume.
“Those who live by the sword must die by the sword”.
Malami wondered why the senator, “who has been dishing out such punishment to his colleagues should come to court for protection for such punishment”.
He argued that Omo-Agege was bound by the rules of the Senate and had no basis to challenge the action of the Senate against him.
Malami said: “He (Omo-Agege) swore to an oath to be bound by the rules of the National Assembly, including the standing order,” Magaji said.
After listening to arguments by parties, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba adjourned to May 10 for judgment.
Earlier, the dismissed an application by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, Senators Samuel Anyawu and Bala Na’Allah, seeking to be made parties in the case
The judge upheld the objection put forward by Omo-Agege and the AGF against the two senators’ application.
The judge upheld the contention that since the committee members were agents of a disclosed principal – the Senate and the Senate Principal, needed not to be joined in the suit.
He added that they could not be joined because no contribution would they make in the case that the Senate and its President could not make.
He also ruled that the application by the applicants were incompetent as they failed to file their proposed defence in respect of the suit as the court’s rules required of an applicant seeking to be joined in a suit.
