Date: 2018-08-15

Read the two court judgements that have laid to rest the controversy surrounding how Saraki and Ekweremadu can be impeached.

CASE ONE

Asogwa v Chukwu

(2003) 17 WRN 71

The Court of appeal ruled that section 92(2) which deals with impeachment of Speaker of a State House of Assembly which is the equivalent Section of Section 50(2) at the National level for impeachment of Senate President is 2/3 of the entire House and not 2/3 of members sitting after quorum have been formed.

This completely nullifies the gutter arguments by some lawyers, APC Nwc members and lawmakers in the Senate who are canvassing that what is required to impeach the Senate President is 2/3 of 37 Senators who forms quorum which is 24 Senators.

The landmark ruling of the Appeal Court was Clear that 2/3 majority required by section 90 subsection 2 for impeachment of speaker of a State House of Assembly is the 2/3 of all Members of the State House of Assembly and not 2/3 of Members sitting after quorum have been formed.Note section 90 sub 2 for impeachment of Speaker of a State House of Assembly is the equivalent of section 50 sub 2 for impeachment of Senate President.

CASE TWO

National Assembly V President (2003) 9 NWLR (Part 824) 104 at 132.

In this case the House of Reps and Senate in 2002 overrided President Obasanjo's veto using the arguments that it was 2/3 of the members present after quorum have been formed. Reps had about 203 Members while Senate had 50 Senators who overrided Obasanjo's Veto in 2002.

The Court of Appeal in deciding the matter in year 2003 ruled that the constitutional provision of 2/3 cannot be Misinterpreted to mean 2/3 of members present after quorum have been formed.

The Appeal Court in the landmark judgement delivered by Justice Oguntade JCA( as he then was) declared that two-thirds majority of each House means two-thirds of the membership of the Senate(109) and House of Representatives(360) which is 73 Senator