Although political, Lagosians must have heaved a sigh of relief at the resolution of the crisis that trailed the Lagos State House of Assembly leadership over the past several weeks. No doubt the crisis brewed tension and high emotions that threatened to disrupt the peace of the ‘state of excellence’, following a potential clash of supporters of the ousted Speaker, Mudashiru Obasa, and those of other House members who removed him.

Although the impasse was dramatically resolved when the member was overwhelmingly elected as Speaker to replace Obasa, Mrs Mojisola Meranda, decided to step down as Speaker, in the interest of peace and tranquillity of the house and by extension, of the state. Nevertheless, the whole episode is an example of a power show, where serious legal and constitutional issues were raised but trampled upon for political consideration, and in a manner suggestive that anything can go within the power brokers, irrespective of the will of the people, or constitutional provisions.

The people of Lagos State must be wondering if there is any semblance of decorum or due process existing or remaining in the state. The impression is that irrespective of laws or institutions, the player with the greatest political muscle will always have his way. This portends only ill-will for democracy and is detestable.

The drama surrounding the leadership tussle at the Lagos State House of Assembly is the most recent exhibition of political curiosity by operators of the law. The battle was set in motion when the Speaker of the House, Mudashiru Obasa, was removed in absentia on January 13, 2025, by a majority of the lawmakers. Consequently, his deputy, Mojisola Meranda, was elected as the new speaker.

Predictably, the development generated political tensions that sparked significant controversy in the Lagos State political landscape and polarised the All Progressive Congress (APC) apex decision-making body in the state, the Governance Advisory Council (GAC). While a faction justified Obasa’s impeachment, the other side queried its validity. The initial attempts by the party to timely nip the issue in the bud fell flat as the matter eventually snowballed into a full-scale political crisis.

At all times, Obasa maintained that he remained the substantive head of the House on the grounds of a constitutionally flawed impeachment procedure. Despite seeking judicial intervention at the Lagos State High Court, Obasa was desperate to regain and retain control of the House via alternative means. This action further heightened tension around the Assembly Complex and led to the intervention of security operatives at the instance of the Acting Clerk of the House. Unperturbed by the antagonism, Obasa presided over the plenary on Thursday, February 27, 2025, with four lawmakers in attendance.

In a twist of events, the embattled lawmaker was unanimously re-elected by his colleagues on Monday, March 3, 2025, following the resignation of Meranda and reversion to her former position as Deputy Speaker (reportedly under political pressure). Despite the unanimity of the decision, some lawmakers seemed not pleased with the Speaker’s return. Somehow, the House maintained the status quo ante as all decisions made during Obasa’s absence were reversed.

Not only have the series of events amplified the entrenched Nigerian political culture of impunity and recklessness, but they have also raised fundamental questions as to where the interest of the people represented lies, and if there was any consideration for it. Does the Speaker’s re-election, without due consideration for its merits or demerits not strongly suggest that the Lagos State House of Assembly is constituted by timid persons incapable of independent reasoning and action? Has the House the power to suo moto reverse all decisions made by Meranda, who has been elected as speaker? Does the members’ action not amount to a slight betrayal of the person they held as their leader, only to display a volte-face days after? Or was the whole drama orchestrated jointly and knowingly by all the members? These posers need resolution if only to pacify the people of Lagos State who appeared to have been taken for a ride. And if the party masterminded the resolution, shouldn’t they explain their reasons to party supporters?

By virtue of the Evidence Act, all official acts executed by Meranda in the capacity of a Speaker are presumed regular until a court of competent jurisdiction determines the contrary. Although the pending lawsuit instituted by Obasa is arguably overtaken by events, the issues raised in the suit are germane and should, ordinarily, be resolved by the court, which is the only authority imbued with the power to determine the legality of Meranda’s election as Speaker and all the actions she subsequently undertook.

Obasa had dragged the Lagos State Assembly and Meranda to court claiming that the lawmakers were wrong to have removed him when the Assembly was on recess. He, relying on Sections 36, 90, 92(2)(c)101 and 311 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 vis-à-vis Order V Rule 18(2) and Order II Rule 9(1)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)(viii) of the Rules and Standing Order of Lagos State House of Assembly had contested the constitutionality of the Lagos State House of Assembly to sit during recess without the Speaker reconvening the House or giving any other person powers to reconvene the House. He further asserted that Meranda’s position as the Speaker violated the aforementioned constitutional provisions and rules.

Having invoked the jurisdiction of the court in resolving the constitutional questions posed, it was incumbent on Obasa to have patiently waited for the matter to be expeditiously dealt with as requested instead of leveraging his party’s influence to cajole Meranda out of office on the pretext of political negotiations. Nonetheless, all the parties involved in the imbroglio are complicit in the desecration of the hallowed chamber. The entire matter epitomises the consequence of non-adherence to laid-down rules and procedures.

Whilst the contestants have returned to their trench, the only inference drawn from the totality of the matter is that the state legislators were flexing their muscles, and the strongest of them triumphed over the rule of law. The controversy is a theatre of the absurd and a dangerous precedent for the extant democratic experiment. The actions of the principal actors are shameful. The esteem of the Lagos State legislature was lowered and exposed to public ridicule because of the political ambition of a negligible minority.

For more than two months, political gladiators disrupted legislative business in the country’s commercial hub for purely personal gains. Never again should the government of Lagos State permit a replication of a similar controversy. With a catchphrase of Lagos State being the centre of excellence, the state should permit only respectable personalities with profound character to sit at its helms of affairs. The display of mediocrity and brigandage in critical public positions is abhorrent and dysfunctional and should be dismantled in the overriding interest of all Nigerians.