The five All Progressives Congress Senators, who filed a suit before a Federal High Court in Abuja challenging the leadership elections of the 8th Senate have expressed disappointment in the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, over his claims in an application to the Chief Judge of the court, asking for transfer of the case from Justice Adeniyi Ademola to another judge.
According to the senators, the application seeking the transfer of the case from Justice Ademola contained false information aimed at injuring the integrity of the judge.
The elections which produced Dr. Bukola Saraki as the Senate President and Ekweremadu as his deputy is being challenged by Senators Abu Ibrahim, Kabir Marafa, Ajayi Boroffice, Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuyi.
The five plaintiffs who are through their suit marked, FHC/ABJ/CS/651/2015, seeking the removal of both Saraki and Ekweremadu as the Senate President and Deputy Senate President respectively contended that the leadership elections which produced them on June 9, 2015, when the 8th Senate was proclaimed were conducted using forged version of the Senate Standing Orders.
Four days after Justice Ademola heard the parties to the suit and reserved judgment in the case on December 14, 2015, Ekweremadu initiated moves to stop the court from delivering its verdict by leveling allegation of bias against the judge in an application which he sent to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, asking for the reassignment of the case to another judge.
The Deputy Senate President alleged in his application dated December 17, 2015 and filed on December 18, 2015, that Justice Ademola was bias in the handling of the case due to his alleged closeness to National Leader of the APC, Bola Tinubu.
Ekweremadu, also a lawyer, alleged further in the petition which he personally signed that the judge’s wife was recently appointed Head of Service in Lagos State due to his (Justice Ademola’s) relationship with Tinubu.
But in response to Ekweremadu’s application, the Senators, through their lawyer, Mr. Mike Osuman (SAN), contended that the Deputy Senate President who was called to Bar on December 23, 1987, ought to know that the most civilized option open to him to address his grievances was not to stop the court from delivering its judgment but to wait for it to be delivered and then challenge it at the appellate court.
The plaintiffs also faulted Ekweremadu’s allegation of bias and denial of fair hearing against the trial judge.
They maintained that since Ekweremadu did not, at any time, witness proceedings in the case, he must have acted on the wrong information given to him by his lawyers.