N250b suit: I have legislative immunity, Lawan tells court

The suspended Chairman of the House Ad Hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime, Mallam Farouk Lawan, yesterday asked the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory to strike out a N250billion suit against him and three others by a businessman, Mr. Femi Otedola, because he has legislative immunity.

Otedola and his company, Zenon Petroleum and Gas Limited had sued the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal and the suspended Chairman of the House Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime for N250billion.

Others, who are joined in the suit filed in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory , are the Clerk of the National Assembly and the National Assembly.

The two plaintiffs also vowed to expose how a $3million bribe was demanded from them by the first defendant, Farouk Lawan.

The plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants jointly and severally are as follows:

The sum of N100billion against the defendants as general damages for the acts of intimidation, loss of goodwill and patronage occasioned by the acts of the defendants.

The sum of N150billion against the defendants as exemplary damages for their oppressive and arbitrary action.

But Lawan, through his counsel, Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju from Afe Babalola Chambers, sought for an order striking out and/or dismissing this suit.

He raised three grounds for his objection, including the facts that: *the 1st Defendant enjoys legislative immunity; *this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit having regard to the subject matter and parties hereof; and that *the action is premature as no cause of action has arisen to warrant same.

In a written submission, the counsel to Lawan (who is the first defendant) said the lawmaker has legislative immunity.

The submission said: “This is a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of this suit as well as the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to entertain same.

“The grounds of the objection are as shown on the face of the notice of objection. We respectfully crave your Lordship’s indulgence to argue same seriatim.

“We respectfully submit that the 1st Defendant (Lawan) enjoys legislative immunity and cannot, therefore, be sued, having regard to the averments in the Statement of Claim filed in this suit. May we humbly refer your Lordship to Section 3 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. L12, Laws of the Federation, 2004 which provides: “ Immunity from proceedings. No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of a Legislative House –in respect of words spoken before that House or a Committee thereof; or in respect of words written in a report to that House or to any Committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him therein.”

“Without doubt, the totality of the complaint of the Plaintiffs against the 1st Defendant centres on words spoken by him on the floor of the House and/or words written in a report to the House of Representative or its Committee. We refer your Lordship to paragraphs 3, 8, 15, 20, 23, 24, 25 & 26 of the Statement of Claim.

“The net effect of these paragraphs and indeed the totality of the Statement of Claim is that the Plaintiff’s complaint borders on the words spoken by the 1st Defendant and/or written by him in a report to the House of Representatives or its ad-hoc committee and cannot therefore be entertained by this Honourable Court. See the unreported decision of this Honourable Court presided over by Hon. Justice S. E. Aladetoyinbo in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/164/2008 between Hon. Henry Seriake Dickson v. R. Hon. Werinippe Seibarugu Dividson & Ors, delivered on the 30th of June, 2009 where His Lordship held on pages 10 – 11 thus: “The relevant statute to this proceeding is Section 3 of the Legislative House (Powers and Privileges) Act 1990.It reads as follows:

“No Civil or Criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of a Legislative House. In respect of words spoken before that House or a Committee thereof or in respect of words written in a report to that House or to any Committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion, question brought or introduced by him therein.”

The defendant insisted that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit.

Lawan said the subsidy regime on petroleum products relates to the Federal Government’s revenue.

“This case, therefore, clearly falls within Section 251(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. See N.D.I.C. v. Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 at 182 para. H,” he said.

Lawan said the application before the court by Otedola and Zenon did not disclose any cause of action because no White Paper had been issued by the Federal Government on the said report of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Source: The Nation