* Says Senators Adebayo, Misau mischief makers
The Federal Government has asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by two former All Progressives Congress’ Senators, Rabiu Ibrahim Adebayo and Isa Hamma Misau, seeking to stop reconvening of the Senate without the notice of the Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki.
Adebayo, who represents Kwara South, and Misau, representing Bauchi Central District in the Senate, were elected on the platform of APC before they defected to the opposition PDP.
In a notice of preliminary objection to the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/843/18, the Federal Government through the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN, urged the court to dismiss the suit.
The preliminary objection was dated August 27, and is challenging the suit of the senators for want of jurisdiction.
The AGF, the 10th defendant among 12 defendants told the court that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the action, adding that they have failed to show any wrongdoing of the defendants, if any.
The AGF said, “My lord, I don’t think this court is so free to allow itself to be used by mischief makers like the plaintiffs in this matter. The present suit as constituted have not shown any wrong done to the plaintiffs.
“We submit that the directives or invitation of the Senate President to appear before the Inspector General of Police for further investiagation in line with paragraph 5(f) of the DPPF’s advice cannot create a cause of action in favour of either Saraki himself or the plaintiffs, the AGF said.
“It is pertinent to my lord to state here that if there is a threat to powers of the Senate President as conferred on him by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Standing Rules of the Senate, the first person to complain and not the plaintiffs also herein, the Senate President, did not raise any alarm that some people are trying to usurp his powers and illegally reconvene the Senate.
“My Lord, in determining whether the plaintiffs have the necessary capacity to institute the action, the claim must be examined to see if there is any enforceable right in connection with with the plaintiffs.
The AGF argued that there must be a nexus between the plaintiffs and the disclosed cause of action concerning their right or obligation which have been breached or threatened to be violated.
The AGF contended that section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution is to the effect that for a person to be able to institute an action in court, he must be able to show that he has the right and obligation to do so and failure to do so would cause him/her injustice.
The FG therefore urged the court to decline jurisdictions and hold that the plaintiffs though members of the Senate, are total strangers to the circumstances that gave rise to the suit and hence lack the locus to institute the action.
The AGF insisted that the duty of the plaintiffs is to attend Senate business of the 2nd defendant (senate president), through due process, summons the Senate to reconvene and carry out their duties as senators and not to invent facts and concort a suit and file same in a court of law.
The AGF further argued that all through the facts in the plaintiffs’ affidavits, “there were nothing showing that the Senate President has complained to the plaintiffs that his powers are being usurped by some agents of the state.
The AGF further submitted that since every declaration and order sought by the plaintiffs in the suit are directly for the benefit of the Senate President, the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to commence the suit and that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiffs’ suit.
In addition, the AGF stated that the plaintiffs also had failed to establish any acceptable locus standi as required by law to institute the action, just as they have failed to show how the wrongfull act (If any) of the defendants in the suit affects them in person.
The case has been adjourned till September 13.