Edo Assembly: We’ll abide by court ruling but… - House of Reps

Following a court ruling restraining the national assembly and its agents from taking over the Edo State Assembly, the House of Representatives has expressed its willingness to abide by the said ruling.

In a release signed by the chairman House Committee on Media, Hon. Benjamin Kalu, the House expressed dissatisfaction over the ruling, saying it is an attempt to prevent another arm from carrying out its constitutional duty, adding that it is contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Spokesperson however revealed that the House of Representatives will appeal the ruling.

Read reaction below

This 9th House believes in the democratic principle of separation of powers; which is why this court ruling poses a problem. It is a core constitutional duty of the National Assembly that the court has attempted to prevent. This is like the National Assembly telling the President not to present the National Budget or like the Executive stopping the Courts from giving a ruling or judgement.

No arm of the government is supposed to abdicate power to another arm. It is contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers that one arm of government should prevent another arm from carrying out its constitutional duty.

The Constitution in Section 11(4) is clear on this. Where the House of Assembly of any State is unable to perform its functions by reason of the situation prevailing in that State, the National Assembly may intervene and take over the legislative functions of that House until such a time as the House of Assembly is able to resume its functions.

It is no coincidence that this particular duty of the National Assembly to take over a State House that is unable to function falls under the section of the Constitution that deals with Public Order and Public Security.

This is a matter of restoring public order and security in Edo State and the National Assembly has to perform its constitutional duty. It should not be a question for debate.

Now maybe the courts can (if they find reason after the take over) say that the take over was wrong based on their own interpretation of section 11 but not to preempt a constitutional role which is Sancrosanct.

Surely the doctrine of ripeness is applicable here. In some democratic climes Judicial restraint, which is procedural approach to the exercise of judicial review, urges judges to refrain from deciding legal issues, and especially constitutional ones, except where the decision is necessary in resolving a concrete dispute between adverse parties.

As a substantive approach , it urges judges considering constitutional questions to grant substantial deference to the views of the elected arms of Government and invalidate their actions only when constitutional limits have clearly been violated.

The National Assembly will surely appeal the ruling but for now we must respect it.

DISCLAIMER:Opinion articles are solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the publishers of ABN TV

For publication of your news content, articles, videos or any other news worthy materials, please send to [email protected]

For Advert and other info, you can call 07013559600 or send a WhatsApp Message to 07013559600

Please drop your comments below

comments