Justice Yetunde Pinheiro of the Lagos High Court, Ikeja, has reserved judgement in the suit filed by reinstated Lagos Speaker, Mudashiru Obasa, challenging the legality of the January 13, 2025, proceedings that led to his initial removal.

The judge reserved judgement after hearing arguments and submissions from counsel representing all parties in the case.

Earlier, the court dismissed an application seeking a change of legal representation for the Lagos State House of Assembly in the suit. It upheld that Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) remains the competent and duly authorised counsel* to represent the House of Assembly, the first defendant in the case.

The judge noted that a separate suit, filed by Olalekan Onafeko, challenging his suspension as Clerk of the House of Assembly at the National Industrial Court, Lagos, is yet to be determined. She added that some facts raised in Obasa’s suit had also been raised in Onafeko’s case, which the court could not address at this stage.

Mr. Olusola Idowu (SAN), seeking to replace Falana as the House’s legal representative, argued that the Assembly has the inherent right to change counsel at any time. He also pointed to an alleged order from the National Industrial Court reinstating the suspended Clerk, Olalekan Onafeko, who subsequently briefed a new legal team.

However, Mr. Falana (SAN) countered that he had not been debriefed and stated that the Industrial Court had denied ordering Onafeko’s reinstatement.

The court also struck out applications by the 1st and 3rd to 35th defendants seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal.

During the hearing, various defendants presented preliminary objections.

Prof. Joshua Olatoke (SAN), representing Obasa, urged the court to assume jurisdiction over the case. He argued that the House was on recess on January 13, when lawmakers allegedly convened illegally without notifying the Speaker or the Majority Leader, who have the constitutional power to reconvene sessions during recess.

However, Falana (SAN) opposed the suit, arguing that the March 3 proceedings, in which Obasa was re-elected as Speaker, had rendered the case irrelevant.

Similarly, Olu Daramola (SAN), representing the 3rd to 35th defendants, maintained that the Speaker’s removal was an internal affair of the House, which courts lack jurisdiction to interfere in. He asserted that the January 13 proceedings were valid since they took place in the Assembly and the decision to remove Obasa was backed by a two-thirds majority of lawmakers.

On the other hand, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), representing the 36th to 40th defendants who support Obasa, argued that the January 13 session violated House rules, thereby granting the court the power to hear the case.

In his preliminary objections, Falana (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that Obasa failed to issue a pre-action notice to the House, as required by law. He maintained that the House has the constitutional right to appoint and remove the Speaker and other principal officers without judicial interference.

He further argued that, since Obasa was re-elected Speaker on March 3, alongside Mojisola Meranda as Deputy Speaker, the case had become academic.

Lawyers representing Meranda and 33 lawmakers also sought dismissal of the suit, arguing that Obasa, having accepted re-election, was contradicting himself by still suing the House—an alleged abuse of judicial process.

However, Olatoke (SAN) countered that live issues remained in the case, particularly whether the January 13 proceedings were constitutional. He insisted that the Speaker’s re-election had not resolved the core legal questions, which the court must decide.

“We challenge the validity of the January 13 plenary. We seek a court ruling that nullifies those proceedings because they were unconstitutional,” he argued.

After listening to all arguments and submissions, Justice Pinheiro reserved judgement in the case and stated that a date for judgement and rulings will be communicated to all parties in due course.