Jonathan Asks Court To Set Aside Order Barring Soldiers From Elections

Jonathan Asks Court To Set Aside Order
Barring Soldiers From Elections by Slynonny
(m): 6:35am
lagos—President Goodluck Jonathan, has
asked
the Court of Appeal, sitting in Lagos, to set
aside
the Federal High Court order, which restrained
him from deploying soldiers to assist the
police in
providing security during the general elections,
which is starting tomorrow across the country.
The judge at the lower court, Justice Ibrahim
Buba, had in the suit by a House of
Representatives member, Femi Gbajabiamil
held
that the President cannot deploy soldiers
without
the National Assembly’s approval.
Other respondents in the suit were the Chief of
Defence Staff, the Chief of Army Staff, the Chief
of
Air Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff and the
Attorney-General of the Federation. President
Jonathan through his counsel, Deacon Dele
Adesina, SAN, in the appeal, is praying the
appellate court, to dismiss the judgement of
the
lower court in its entirety for lack of merit.
Jonathan in his six grounds of appeal is
contending the lower court’s decision did not
represent the state of the law, “particularly his
lordship decision regarding the validity of the
originating process is not correct.” Adesina
faulted the lower court’s reliance on the recent
election petition appeal relating to the issue of
the
deployment of troops, which was yet to be
pronounced upon by the apex court.
He is contending that trial judge erred by
“dismissing the objection filed by the 1st and
6th
defendants and assumed jurisdiction when he
held that the plaintiff sought and obtained
leave
to issue and serve the originating summons
outside Lagos State, when indeed the grounds
of
the objection was non-compliance with the
provisions of Section 97 of the Sheriff and Civil
Process Act.”
He argued that by virtue of the “Provisions of
Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process
Act,
every writ of summons for service out of the
state
in which it was issued shall in addition to any
other endorsement or notice required by the
law
of such state have endorsed thereon a notice
indicating that the originating process is to be
served out of the state and in which state it is
to
be served. It is settled law that compliance
with
the provision of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and
Civil Process Act is mandatory.”
According to him, the trial judge erred in law
when he assumed jurisdiction and proceeded
to
enter judgment when indeed, he lacks the
jurisdiction to do so. He argued that the
originating process having failed to comply
with
the mandatory provisions of the Sheriff and
Civil
Process Act was not issued according to due
process and therefore, incompetent and liable
to
be struck out.
“A competent court cannot sit on an
incompetent
suit. The law is settled that where a court
lacks
jurisdiction, its proceedings no matter how
well
conducted and its judgment or orders are a
nullity,” he argued. Another ground of the
appeal,
it that the trial judge erred when he held that
the
plaintiff had the plaintiff at the lower court
had
the requisite locus standi to institute the
action,
as it was a matter of public litigation.
On the particulars of this ground, he said “The
Plaintiff is the Minority Leader in the House of
Representatives who had canvassed thse same
arguments and reliefs on the floor of the
House of
Representatives and lost to the majority. The
members of the House of Representatives are
elected by the citizens to represent their
interest
and having lost to the majority decision in the
House, he has removed this matter from the
purview of public interest litigation. The
appellant,
therefore, wants the court to set aside the
judgement of the lower court, or in the
alternative,
dismiss the entire suit for lack of merit.