Court dismisses Falana’s suit against National Assembly

Court dismisses Falana’s suit against National Assembly

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit brought before it by a Human Rights Lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) challenging the National Assembly’s “unconstitutional jumbo salaries and allowances paid to its members.”
The Senate, House of Representatives, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Accountant General of the Federation are the defendants in the suit.
The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Ibrahim Auta, in his judgment on Tuesday held that Falana lacks the ‘locus standi’ to institute the action.
The Judge said the suit did not disclose any reasonable cause of action and added that the action was “speculative, hypothetical, academic and moot” because the plaintiff did not establish how the action of the National Assembly had affected him personally.
Justice Auta held that the third defendant (Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and fiscal Commission) is the ideal institution to institute such action, pointing out that, “Locus is a constitutional issue; the trite law does not bestow the right to institute this suit by the plaintiff.
“This is not an issue around fundamental rights violation; the fact that he is a legal practitioner does not confer him the locus,” the judge said and added that the plaintiff must prove how he has been affected by the allowances of the Nigerian legislators.
“He must show by way of affidavit evidence, how the increase in the salaries and allowances of the Senators and House of Representatives members has negatively affected him.
“The interest of the plaintiff must be tangible, real in law and not a caricature that stems from personal aggrandisement; the suit is therefore dismissed for lacking in merit,” Justice Auta held.
Counsel the Senate and the House of Representatives, Kenneth Ikonne (SAN) had prayed the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds of incompetence and abuse of court process.
He argued that Falana had no locus standi to institute the suit, adding that the court was bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the case and urged the court to hold that the plaintiff is nothing but a “meddlesome interloper.”
Falana had in 2011 approached the court claiming that the National Assembly lacks the powers to increase salaries and allowances of its members.
He asked the court to declare unconstitutional, the allowances provided for the members in the Appropriation Act, 2010.
The plaintiff further asked the court to order the lawmakers to refund to the treasury all unauthorised salaries and allowances received by them since May 29, 2007.
He asked the Court to determine whether the Senators and members of the House are entitled to receive salaries and allowances not determined by the Revenue Mobilsation and Fiscal Allocation Commission pursuant to Section 70 of the Constitution.
Falana further prayed the Court to determine whether the Senate and the House are competent to determine the salaries and allowances of the members of the National Assembly.