Lagos Speaker: Lawyers at loggerheads over Assembly brief as court fixes date for hearing

By Lukman Olabiyi

Drama ensued at the Lagos State court on Friday when two lawyers simultaneously claimed to represent the Lagos State House of Assembly in a suit filed by Mudashiru Ajayi Obasa, challenging his removal as Speaker.

Obasa filed the suit (ID/9047GCM/2025) before Justice Yetunde Pinheiro, contesting the constitutionality of the Lagos State House of Assembly’s sitting and proceedings during a recess, which occurred without the Speaker reconvening the House or delegating authority.

Obasa’s lawyer, Chief Afolabi Fashanu, SAN, is representing him in the case.

The suit addresses the constitutionality of the Lagos State House of Assembly’s proceedings on January 13, 2025, when Obasa was allegedly impeached as Speaker.

Obasa’s application presents nine grounds, including interpretations of various sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), as well as the Rules and Standing Orders of the Lagos State House of Assembly.

The claimant seeks the court’s interpretation of Sections 36, 90, 92(2)(c), 101, and 311 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), in relation to Order V, Rule 18(2), and Order II, Rule 9(1)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)(viii) of the Lagos State House of Assembly Rules, which have constitutional status.

When the matter was called, Chief Afolabi Fashanu, SAN, appeared for Obasa, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, appeared for the first defendant (Lagos House of Assembly), Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, appeared for Mojosola Lasbat Meranda (current Speaker of the Lagos House of Assembly), and Mr. Olu Daramola, SAN, appeared for parties seeking to join the suit.

However, a mild drama unfolded when another lawyer, Abang Mkpandiok, challenged Falana’s representation of the Lagos State House of Assembly.

Mkpandiok stated that he had been briefed by the Assembly the previous night and had filed his motion for a change of counsel that morning.

He argued that the right to choose counsel is a fundamental human right and urged the court to address his application first.

In a motion brought under Order 52, Rule 2 and 3 of the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019, Mkpandiok sought the court’s permission to replace Femi Falana SAN of Falana & Falana Chambers with himself, Abang Mkpandiok, Esq., of Atlantic Law Firm.

Falana objected, stating that he had not been served with any notice of a change and remained the counsel on record for the Assembly.

He asserted that he had not been debriefed and had not received any official communication about the change.

Mr. Oyetibo also confirmed that he had not been served with the application.

Mkpandiok chose to serve the application to the other counsel present in court.

After reviewing the court’s records, Justice Pinheiro ruled that the application for a change of counsel was not yet ready for hearing.

The court noted that, as Mkpandiok himself admitted, the application had not been served on all parties and thus deferred the matter pending compliance with the rules of court.

The court also ruled that the application for accelerated hearing would not be addressed today (Friday).

During the proceedings, Daramola SAN informed the court about a Motion on Notice filed by 33 members of the Lagos State House of Assembly, requesting to be joined as parties in the suit.

The lawmakers filed the motion under Section 361 of the Constitution and Order 15, Rules 4(1) & 16(3), and Order 43, Rule 1 of the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019.

The motion sought two main reliefs: to join the individuals seeking to be added as co-defendants and to amend the originating and other processes to reflect their names as defendants.

The applicants are members of the Lagos State House of Assembly elected to represent various wards and constituencies in Lagos State.

Justice Pinheiro has scheduled March 7 for the hearing of all pending applications.

After the proceedings, Hon. Meranda spoke to journalists, denying rumours that she had resigned.

Regarding her security details, Mrs. Meranda informed journalists that although her security, which includes 12 police officers and 4 DSS operatives, had not been fully restored, she currently only has four police officers assigned to her.