By Ajayi Olayinka
The quest by embattled lawmaker, Hon Abdulmumin Jibrin, to return to the House of Representatives after been suspended by the house for going against the rules of the parliament suffered a set back as a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja adjourned the suit instituted by him indefinitely.
The suit filed by Hon. Jibrin to challenge his suspension from the House of Representatives was rejected by the Federal High Court due to the existence of an appeal on the same matter which is pending at the Supreme Court.
Counsel to Hon Jibrin Chief Femi Falana, SAN, had argued that the High Court should disregard the appeal pending at the Supreme Court over the issue of joinder of some members of the House to the action.
However, counsel to the House of Representatives drew the attention of the court to the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court and urged the Court not to proceed with the case as according to him, Chief Falana was trying to set the lower court in collusion with the apex court of the land.
In his ruling, Justice John Tsoho said that however the manner the information about the appeal before the Supreme Court gets to him, he will not continue with the case until the matter is dispensed with by the apex court.
It would be recalled that Hon. Abdulmumin Jibrin had, in 2017, commenced Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/812/2016 to challenge his suspension from the House.
Similarly, some individuals who identified themselves as his constituents, also commenced separate a action with Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/796/ 2016 seeking nullification of his suspension.
When both matters came up on the 10th of January this year, the Federal High Court maintained that in the case of the suit filed by Hon. Jibrin, it would respect the Supreme Court and await its decision on the joinder to the suit of Hon. Ossai Nicholas Ossai and Hon. Orker – Jev Emmanuel Yisa, who said their characters were impugned by accusations made by Hon. Jibrin.
On the related suit filed by three members of Kiru/Bebeji Federal Constituency, the court struck out the suit for lacking in substance and want of diligent prosecution.
