The Lagos State High Court has rejected an attempt to replace Femi Falana (SAN) as the legal representative of the Lagos State House of Assembly in a case brought by Speaker Mudashiru Obasa, who is disputing his initial removal.
The court affirmed that Falana remains the authorized counsel.
The court also noted that a related case at the National Industrial Court concerning the suspended clerk, Olalekan Onafeko, is still pending.
The court stated that they could not delve into the facts of Obasa’s suit at this stage, as they overlapped with the application to change representation.
Olusola Idowu (SAN), who sought to replace Falana, argued the House’s right to change counsel and cited a National Industrial Court order reinstating Onafeko.
Read Also: Court Takes Decision In Defection Suit Against 27 Rivers Lawmakers
Falana countered that he had not been formally dismissed and that the Industrial Court had denied ordering Onafeko’s reinstatement.
The court dismissed applications from the 1st and 3rd to 35th defendants requesting a stay of proceedings while they appealed.
Further pending applications are being considered by the court.
Justice Yetunde Pinheiro has reserved judgment on Speaker Obasa’s suit challenging the legality of his initial removal on January 13, 2025.
The date for the judgment and rulings will be announced later.
Professor Joshua Olatoke (SAN), representing Speaker Obasa, argued that the court should hear the case, claiming the January 13th meeting was illegal because the House was in recess and the Speaker and majority leader, who have the authority to reconvene sessions, were not informed.
Femi Falana (SAN), whose representation of the House was confirmed by the court, opposed the suit, arguing that Obasa’s re-election on March 3rd made the case irrelevant.
Olu Daramola (SAN), representing the 3rd to 35th defendants, argued the speaker’s removal was an internal House matter beyond the court’s jurisdiction and that the January 13th proceedings were valid, meeting the required two-thirds majority.
Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), representing the 36th to 40th defendants (supporting Obasa), argued the January 13th sitting violated House rules, giving the court jurisdiction.
Falana also argued for dismissal due to the lack of a pre-action notice, the House’s right to appoint/remove its speaker, and that the re-election and restoration of the Deputy Speaker rendered the case academic.
Join Informant Online WhatsApp Channel With Link Below: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaihFajBadmT29ufud2
