BREAKING: Security agents surround Lagos Assembly premises, seals Speaker, Deputy’s offices

By OUR REPORTER, Lagos

However, The DEFENDER gathered further that the unwavering Speaker, Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, arrived with her convoy at about 11.15am despite the security agents’ action, described as a presidency backed attempt to force her to resign, in confirmation of our earlier report that any moment from Saturday, such development to remove the Lagos Indigenous speaker for ousted Mudashiru Ajaiyi Obasa’s reinstatement as Speaker.

Report reaching us from Alausa Ikeja, capital of Lagos State, Nigeria, says operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) and Nigeria Police Force (NPF), in the early hours on Monday, stormed the premises of the Lagos State House of Assembly, sealing up the offices of the Speaker, Mojisola Meranda, her deputy and clerk of the House.

It was gathered that the security agents, who were armed to the teeth, have took over the premises at and environs frisking every passers-by at about 10am.

However, The DEFENDER gathered further that the unwavering Speaker, Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, arrived with her convoy at about 11.15am despite the security agents’ action, described as a presidency backed attempt to force her to resign, in confirmation of our earlier report that any moment from Saturday, such development to remove the Lagos Indigenous speaker for ousted Mudashiru Ajaiyi Obasa’s reinstatement as Speaker.

Meranda, we learnt, was unable to access her office as the security agents, who took over the offices, claimed that they received a bomb alert in the Assembly. While that alert was happening exactly at the same time the presidency was said to be trying every means possible to unseat the speaker for Obasa’s return remained question yet to be answered as at the time of filing this report Monday .

READ ALSO: Your going to court against indigenous Lagos Speaker Meranda ill-advised, Lagos youths warn Obasa

The report had said Obasa’s dragging Meranda and the state Assembly to court, despite insistence of 32 of the 40 members on his removal of January 13, 2025, was in a game by the Bola Tinubu’s presidency to use the judiciary to achieve what many of the lawmakers and lawyers said would create constitutional crisis in the House.

Recall that the embattled former Speaker of the House, Mudashiru Obasa, had sued the state lawmakers challenging his removal as the Speaker of the Assembly.

Obasa, it was gathered, had filed a motion at the Ikeja Division of the State High Court, where he is also seeking an accelerated hearing of his suit.

He was removed in absentia by 32 out of the 40 members of the state Assembly on January 13, 2025. He was in America when he was removed in a situation described as “coup,” by President Bola Tinubu.

The development had generated controversy with members of the Governance Advisory Council (GAC), an apex political decision making body in All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos, divided over Obasa’s removal.

Obasa, in the suit, was challenging the legality of his removal from office.

The motion, made available to Vanguard Media was filed on Wednesday, 12 February, 2025, names the Lagos State House of Assembly and Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, current Speaker of the House, as defendants.

In the suit filed by his lawyers, led by Chief Afolabi Fashanu, SAN, Obasa is seeking several reliefs, among which are: “An order fixing a date for the expeditious hearing of the originating summons.

“AN order of this Honourable Court abridging the time within which the Defendants may file their response by way of counter affidavits/written addresses as specified by the Rules of this Honourable Court, to 7 days after the hearing and determination of this Application.

“An order of this Honourable Court abridging the time within which the Plaintiff/Applicant may file its Reply of points law, as specified in the Rules of this Honourable Court, to 3 days of the service of the Defendants processes on him.”

Obasa’s application is predicated on nine grounds, including the interpretation of various sections of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As amended), and the Rules and Standing Order of the Lagos State House of Assembly.

The suit read in part: “This application is predicated among which he stated the suit concerns the interpretation of Sections 36; 90; 92(2)(c); 101 and 311 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As amended) vis-à-vis ORDER V RULE 18(2) and Order II Rule 9(1)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)(viii) OF RULES AND STANDING ORDER OF LAGOS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (which enjoy constitutional flavor and status);

“The action borders on the constitutionality or otherwise of the sitting and proceedings of the Lagos State House of Assembly of the 13th January, 2025 where the Plaintiff herein, as Honourable Speaker was said to be impeached.

“This action challenges the constitutionality of the sitting and proceedings of the Lagos State House of Assembly to sit during recess without the Speaker reconvening the House or giving any other person powers to reconvene the House.

“Public interest requires the case to be heard and determined speedily and expeditiously so that legislative activities in the State is not stalled.

“The legality of the continued sitting of the 1st defendant under the present leadership in violation of the aforementioned laws and rules calls for an urgent determination;

“The nature of this action is such that is required to be heard and determined expeditiously having regard to the exceptional circumstances surrounding same;

“There is need to abridge the time within which the Defendants may file their response to the originating summon as well as time within which the claimant/Applicant may file its reply on point of law; and

“This Honourable Court is imbued with inherent powers to grant accelerated hearing and abridgment of time; and

“It is expedient to grant accelerated hearing of this action and abridgment of time for parties to file the relevant processes in the interest of justice.”

Obasa maintained that none of the parties to the case would be prejudiced or suffer any injustice by the grant to his application.