Justice Ahmed
Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja on Tuesday denied claims by the
House of Representatives that he issued an order stopping investigations into
the allegations that Petroleum Resources Minister, Diezani
Alison-Madueke, spent N10bn to charter a private jet for her trips in the
last two years.
The
judge therefore summoned the House to appear before the court on
May 5 to “clear the air” on the issue.
The
spokesman for the House of Representatives, Zakari
Mohammed, had at a news conference on Monday, announced that the House
had received a court order stopping the Public Accounts Committee
from going ahead with the probe.
However, when
the case came up for hearing on Tuesday, the obviously angry judge
expressed shock at media reports that he had issued an interim injunction
stopping the investigation.
Mohammed
initially blamed journalists for the ‘misinformation’ before he was informed
that it emanated from Mohammed.
To set the
records straight, the judge adjourned the hearing and ordered the House to
appear before the court on May 5 to explain where such order came from.
The
House which is the 2nd defendant in the suit was not represented by any
lawyer during Tuesday’s proceedings.
But the
counsel for the National Assembly, Y. C. Maikyau
(SAN), was present in court, alongside Etigwe Uwa (SAN),
the counsel for the plaintiffs – Alison-Madueke
and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.
In a short
ruling after both counsel had exonerated themselves from the report on the
court order, the judge said, “I have seen a press release in the
media said to have been issued by the House of Representatives that this court
has made an order restraining the House from continuing with the probe.
“As far as I am
concerned, and as the judge presiding over this case, no such order was made.”
Mohammed
also noted that he only ordered the defendants – the National Assembly and the
House – to be put on notice after the plaintiffs’ counsel moved an ex parte
motion praying for an order of interim injunction to restrain the House from
summoning the minister.
He said,
“This court in a ruling directed the defendants to appear in this court
on April 17 and show cause why the interim order should not be made.
“On
April 17, the plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that processes have
not been served on the defendants owing to the Nyanya bomb blast and the court
adjourned till today (Tuesday, April 29).
“As the
press release was issued by the House which is the 2nd defendant in this suit,
and as the House is not represented in court today, the only fair thing to do
is to adjourn this matter and issue the House with a hearing notice to appear
before the court and clear the air on whether it had been served with a restraining
order issued by this court.”
The Director,
Legal Services of the House of Representatives, is expected to appear
before the court on May 5 to shed light on the false court order.
Earlier,
counsel for the plaintiffs had washed his hands off the
development.
The judge
had wondered whether the plaintiffs’ counsel was behind the misinformation but
Uwa spiritedly professed his innocence, laying the blame on the House.
“The press
release was circulated to media houses by the House ,” he said.
Maikyau also
distanced himself from the alleged restraining order but went ahead to
apologise on behalf of the Director of Legal Services.
“There is
no report that it was the Director of Legal Services of the National Assembly
that was behind such information – I apologise,” he said.
He noted
that it was strange that the report on the order was released on Monday,
several days after the court directed the defendants to appear
before it to show cause why the relief sought by the plaintiffs should not be
granted.
“I knew that
something was wrong because that order (to appear before the court) has been
subsisting since April 14 and if any other order was made on April 17, it
would have been published since,” Maikyau added.
In the
suit, Alison-Madueke wants the court to make an order of interim injunction
restraining the National Assembly and the House “whether by
themselves, their members, committees or agents from summoning or directing the
appearance of the applicants before any committee particularly the Public
Accounts Committee set up by the House …”
The
minister also asked the court to stop the committee from asking her or
any official of the ministry or the NNPC to produce any papers, notes or other
documents or give any evidence in line with a letter from the House
dated March 26, 2014, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on
notice.
She also
asked for an order of interim injunction restraining the National Assembly and
the House from issuing a warrant to compel her attendance, or the
attendance of any official of the ministry or the NNPC, with regard to the
investigation.
Meanwhile,
the Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, has said that
the House had resolved to seek a legal opinion on Madueke’s
decision to sue the legislature over the investigation.
Tambuwal
clarified the stance of the House shortly after the judge denied
issuing the reported order.
He said when he
was briefed on the issue on Monday, his first reaction was to advise the
Committee on Public Accounts to tarry awhile to enable the House to get the
true picture of things.
Tambuwal spoke
at Tuesday’s pleanary as some members complained that the Judiciary was
interfering with the work of the legislature.
They had
observed that this conflicted with the provisions of Sections 88/89 of the 1999
Constitution (as amended), which empowers the National Assembly to
investigate any official or agency of government for the purpose of exposing
corruption.
Tambuwal said,
“My attention was drawn to the matter that the minister, the NNPC and other
stakeholders had gone to court.
“I immediately
sought for consultations. The result of my consultations is to seek formal
legal opinion on the status of the action, not necessarily because as a lawyer
myself, I do not know the position of the law.”