Justice Halilu reserved Judgement after all the counsel in the matter argued their submissions.
The plaintiffs who filed for themselves and on behalf of the Constituents are Otobong Orok and Anekan Akpan.
At the resumed proceedings before Justice Yusuf Halilu, the plaintiffs through their lawyers Desire Wuyep and Omang Omang told the court that they have every right to determine who should represent them in the senate since they are legal constituents of the senatorial district.
Besides, the lawyer argued that a judgement of the court should be obeyed upon delivery, hence an appeal against a judgement does not operate as a stay of execution.
His line of argument was to counter the the submissions of the defence counsel who had earlier told the court that there is a pending appeal against the judgement that sacked senator Akpan
He said, "As we speak, there is no order for stay of execution of the judgement delivered by an Uyo High Court. In seeking clarification the Judge asked Saraki's Lawyer wether Certificate of Return of Akpan has been withdrawn or not. The question which Saraki Lawyer decline to answer, claiming that he is not aware, wether the Certificate was withdrawn or not.
The Constituents' lawyer further submitted that any motion or bills that Akpan contributed to on the floor of the senate bears an interest of illegality.
Earlier, counsel to the former Senator Akpan Bar Omang had argued that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge Saraki by instituting the suit. He further posit that Etim's Certificate of Return had been withdrawn by Justice Dimkpa of the Federal High Court. This claims were refuted by he Plaintiffs, Lawyer who accused Omani of speculation without showing the Order of court nullifying Etim,S Certificate of Return. He however cited Supreme Court authority which states that when a matter is transferred from a judge, as in the instant case, every order made becomes null and void.
However, Justice Halilu after listening to all the submissions reserves judgement in the case.
It could be recalled that Otobong Orok and Anekan Akpan, had asked the court to among other things determine whether or not, the “defendants were not constitutionally bound to immediately swear in the plaintiffs’ representative in the Senate of Nigeria in person of Hon. Bassey Etim.”
The court was also asked to determine whether with the first defendant’s disregard to the order of a High Court of Uyo, he had not become unfit, incompetent and incapable of holding the office of Senate president of Nigeria.
They insisted that Saraki and Ekweremadu were constitutionally bound to immediately swear in the plaintiffs’ representative in the Senate.
They asked the court to declare that having regard to the provisions of Section 75(1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2010, Article 7 of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 and other cited laws, that the defendants Saraki and Ekweremadu were constitutionally bound to immediately swear in the plaintiffs’ representative in the Senate.
No comments