A lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, has appealed against the Federal High Court ruling dismissing his application which sought accelerated hearing of his suit.
Jideobi, in the substantive suit filed before Justice James Omotosho at the Abuja division of the court, is seeking the reversal of Gov. Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers’ six-month suspension by President Bola Tinubu.
However, the lawyer filed an ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/572/2025 for the trial court to refer all the issues of law he raised in his case to the Court of Appeal for speedy determination.
The motion followed his allegation of delay of proceedings in the substantive suit by the trial judge.
Justice Omotosho, however, dismissed the ex-parte application, on July 17 in a ruling, for being unmeritorious.
The judge held that the application was incompetent and in breach of the fair hearing right of those that were listed as respondents in the matter.
Jideobi had, in the suit, sued President Tinubu; the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF); the Sole Administrator of Rivers, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd), and the Attorney-General of Rivers as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
The lawyer, in his notice of appeal, prayed the appellate court to set aside the ruling.
The appellant also sought an order, “directing the lower trial High Court to send, forthwith, the constitutional reference which the appellant requested (by his ex-parte application) to the Court of Appeal.”
He further applied for “an order directing the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to re-assign this suit to another judge of the Federal High Court than Honourable Justice J.K. Omotosho for an accelerated hearing.”
He insisted that his motion ex-parte was filed pursuant to Section 295 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
According to him, the learned trial Judge erred in law and refused to follow the decision of the Supreme Court when he held that the question of law which the appellant submitted to the lower court for reference to the Court of Appeal was not such that the lower court could not determine and that it is when the question of law submitted for reference is beyond the grasp of the lower court that it would send the submitted question of law to the Court of Appeal.”
“Under Section 295(2) of the amended 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, a constitutional reference could be made to the Court of Appeal in two instances; (a) when the Court suo motu decides to make the reference and (b) when a party before it requests that the reference be made [otherwise called the first limb and the second limb]
“Under the first limb [when the court makes the reference, the court ‘may’ refer a constitutional question to the appellate court if it is of the opinion that the question involves a substantial question of law whereas under the second limb [when a party makes a request for the constitutional reference], the court [obligatorily] shall refer the question to the Court of Appeal if any party to the proceedings so requests.
“The Supreme Court, in its judgments after judgments, has remained insistent in holding that while the trial High Court is not under a duty to, suo motu, refer a constitutional question to the Court of Appeal, the trial High Court is however duty bound to [willy-nilly] make the said constitutional reference where either party to the proceedings so requests,” Jideobi argued.
The plaintiff had, in his substantive suit, prayed the trial court to declare that “the purported suspension of the Governor and the Deputy-Governor of Rivers State of Nigeria by the 1st defendant on Tuesday the 18th day of March, 2025 is unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever,” among others.
Although the legal practitioner had, earlier, joined Attorneys-General of all the 36 states of the federation in the suit, they were subsequently delisted by the appellant.
Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
