The national assembly has said that it will appeal the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which yesterday, restrained the national assembly and its agents from taking over legislative functions of the Edo State assembly until the determination of a pending suit before it.
The chairman, house committee of media, Mr. Benjamin Kalu who stated this in his reaction to the ruling of Justice Taiwo Taiwo on the matter said the court’s decision poses a problem to the principle of separation of powers and that the national assembly will surely appeal.
“This 9th House believes in the democratic principle of separation of powers; which is why this court ruling poses a problem. It is a core constitutional duty of the National Assembly that the court has attempted to prevent.
“This is like the national assembly telling the President not to present the National budget or like the executive stopping the courts from giving a ruling or judgment.”
Kalu said no arm of the government is supposed to abdicate power to another arm, adding that It is contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers that one arm of government should prevent another arm from carrying out its constitutional duty.
“The Constitution in Section 11(4) is clear on this. Where the House of Assembly of any State is unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that State, the National Assembly may intervene and take over the legislative functions of that House until such a time as the House of Assembly is able to resume its functions.
“It is no coincidence that this particular duty of the national assembly to take over a state house that is unable to function falls under the section of the constitution that deals with public order and public security.
“This is a matter of restoring public order and security in Edo State and the National Assembly has to perform its constitutional duty. It should not be a question for debate.
“Now maybe the courts can (if they find reason after the takeover) say that the takeover was wrong based on their own interpretation of section 11 but not to preempt a constitutional role which is Sacrosanct.
“Surely the doctrine of ripeness is applicable here. In some democratic climes Judicial restraint, which is the procedural approach to the exercise of judicial review, urges judges to refrain from deciding legal issues, and especially constitutional ones, except where the decision is necessary in resolving a concrete dispute between adverse parties.
“As a substantive approach, it urges judges considering constitutional questions to grant substantial deference to the views of the elected arms of Government and invalidate their actions only when constitutional limits have clearly been violated.”
He said though “we must respect it for now, the national assembly will surely appeal the ruling.”
It would be recalled that Justice Taiwo issued an order yesterday restraining the senate and the House of Representatives from taking over the legislative duties of the Edo State House of Assembly.
He ordered parties in Edo legislature to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit challenging the powers of the national assembly to take over the state’s legislative responsibilities.
Specifically, the judge ordered parties to maintain status quo ante bellum and declined to entertain an interlocutory applications brought before the court seeking to halt the national assembly from taking over the state’s legislative function.
The suit was instituted by Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly, Mr. Frank Okiye, and a faction of the state legislature.
Okiye had in the joint suit he filed with the Edo Assembly marked FHC/ABJ/CS/815/2019, among other things, queried the legal competence of a directive the federal legislature handed to the state governor, Mr. Godwin Obaseki, to issue a fresh proclamation to inaugurate the legislature.
