The case instituted against Senate President, Bukola Saraki and his Deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, challenging their election as principal officers of the Senate has again being adjourned to 1st June.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Chukwu adjourned the case following information that the four defendants were not served with hearing notice by the court bailiff.
Counsel to the plaintiff, Mr Mamman Osuman (SAN) told Chukwu that counsel to Ekweremadu, Mr Patrick Ikweto, could not be located for the notice to be served on him. Osuman further told the court that findings by his legal team and from the court bailiff indicated that Ikweto had relocated from his chambers in Wuse to an unknown destination. He said that although the court required counsel relocating office to notify courts where he had cases, Ikweto had not done so. Mamman, however, claimed that Ikweto might have been unable to inform the court due to an oversight.
He appealed to the judge for an adjournment to enable the defendants be served with fresh hearing notices. The judge subsequently adjourned the matter to 1st June and ordered that fresh hearing notices be served on all parties. Justice Chukwu warned that whether the defendants were in court or not on the adjourned date, the hearing would definitely go on.
Sen. Abu Ibrahim, and four others had filed a suit claiming that the Senate standing orders used for the election of Saraki and Ekweremadu had been forged and so the election should be nullified. They prayed the court for an order to stop them from parading themselves as leaders of the Senate and that senators should be barred from recognising them as principal officers.
However, in his defence, Saraki said that he was returned unopposed as there was no election and no one contested the position with him. He said that the five senators had no locus standi to come to court because there were 109 senators and the decision of only five could not override the decision of 104 others. He added that they brought the case to court in their individual capacity and not on behalf of the Senate.
The defence added that they had not told the court what they had lost by that election since they never claimed in their suit that they had aspired to any of the positions. The defence prayed the court to dismiss the case for lack of merit as well as non disclosure of cause of action.