A Federal High Court in Lagos on Friday struck out a suit by Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, seeking the enforcement of his fundamental human rights.
Justice Ibrahim Buba, in a short ruling, held that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Saraki had filed the suit through his lawyer, Mr Ajibola Oluyede, on September 30.
Joined as respondents in the suit are the Attorney General of the Federation; the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC).
Other respondents are Inspector General of Police, Code of Conduct Bureau, Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) and Justice Danladi Umar.
Also joined are Mr Ataedze Adza, Mr Sam Saba, Mr Mohammed Diri and Mr M.S Hassan.
Oluyede had earlier brought an ex parte application before the court, but Justice Buba ordered that the respondents be put on notice.
The court also raised the issue of jurisdiction and ordered counsel to address the court on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the suit.
When the matter was mentioned on Friday, counsel to Saraki informed the court that all parties to the suit had been respectively served with the court processes.
Buba, however, told counsel to address the court on the issue of jurisdiction.
Addressing the court, Oluyede argued that his client’s right to fair hearing was being threatened by the respondents.
He said that this arose out of a political situation in which they desired him to vacate his office as senate president.
Justice Buba in a short observation, warned Oluyede to confine himself to the provision of section 46 (1) of the Constitution as it relates to a state.
Oluyede told the court that other steps taken by the respondents, was to draw up charges against Saraki and his wife, and ensure that he was convicted at all cost.
He argued that this constituted an infringement on his rights.
He, therefore, submitted that the applicant was at liberty to commence a fundamental right action anywhere, so far he feels his rights were been infringed upon.
In response, counsel to the respondents, Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the applicant’s suit for lack of merit.
According to Jacobs, the applicant’s suit was an attempt to obtain a “black market order’’ that amounted to judicial rascality.
“The applicant’s suit is simply asking my lord to stop the order of the code of conduct tribunal which is ongoing in Abuja.
“The applicant’s originating processes filed in September does not concern any action taken in Lagos.
“It is clear that the charge against the applicant is before the code of conduct tribunal sitting in Abuja,’’ he said.
According to Jacobs, the applicant had prayed the Federal High Court in Abuja to stop the tribunal, but the prayer was refused.
He said that an appeal was also filed at the Court of Appeal seeking similar reliefs, and was also refused.
He, therefore, submitted that the applicant’s suit before the Lagos Federal High Court was an attempt to subvert the cause of justice.
He urged the court to refuse same.
In his ruling Justice Buba held that the issue of jurisdiction was paramount.
“If there is no evidence that the infringement or likely infringement cut across more than one state, then the court will not have the vires or jurisdiction to entertain same.
“The filing of further affidavit after the court raised the issue of jurisdiction suo moto, is not only an afterthought, but amounts to fishing.
“Accordingly, this court has no hesitation in coming to the inevitable conclusion that from the material placed before this court, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
“Same is hereby struck out,’’ Buba held.
In his originating motion, the applicant wants the court to declare that his ongoing trial by the code of conduct tribunal falls short of the requirement of the African Charter on Human Right.
He also seeks an order, restraining the seventh and eight respondents from continuing with the trial on the basis of the charge.
He wants a declaration that any further invitation, arrest or prosecution by the respondents on the basis of allegations that have been raised 12 years after alleged commission, amounts to a breach of his rights.
