Armed operatives from the Department of State Security (DSS) and the Nigeria Police force stormed the Lagos State House of Assembly in the early hours of Monday, sealing off the offices of Speaker Mojisola Meranda, her deputy, and the clerk of the House. The dramatic action unfolded at the Government House in Alausa, Ikeja, where security personnel meticulously frisked every passerby in an effort to secure the premises. The episode has now become intertwined with a brewing legal battle over the removal of former Speaker Mudashiru Obasa—a saga that promises to shake the very foundations of Lagos legislative politics.
By approximately 11:15 AM on Monday, Speaker Meranda made her much-anticipated arrival with her convoy, signaling a return to normalcy after what many described as a security blackout at the Assembly. However, the tension was far from over, as the dramatic intervention by security forces was seen by critics as a blatant overreach aimed at maintaining a particular political narrative within the House.
The unfolding drama has now taken a legal twist. Former Speaker Mudashiru Obasa, who was controversially removed in absentia by 32 out of the 40 members of the House on January 13, 2025, has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of his removal. Obasa, who was in the United States at the time of his ouster—a move widely described as a “coup” orchestrated under political pressure—has now taken his battle to the Ikeja Division of the State High Court. His legal action seeks not only to overturn his removal but also to secure an accelerated hearing of his motion, with the suit naming the Lagos State House of Assembly and current Speaker Mojisola Meranda as defendants.
In a detailed petition, Obasa’s legal team, led by Chief Afolabi Fashanu, SAN, outlined a series of grievances based on multiple constitutional provisions. The suit challenges the constitutionality of the Assembly’s proceedings on January 13, 2025, when Obasa was impeached in his absence. It contends that the removal of the Speaker was carried out in violation of several provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, specifically Sections 36, 90, 92(2)(c), 101, and 311 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Furthermore, the petition cites breaches of Order V Rule 18(2) and Order II Rule 9(1)(ii)-(viii) of the Lagos State House of Assembly’s Rules and Standing Order, arguing that the sitting of the House during recess without the Speaker’s reconvening or authorizing another individual to do so is illegal and unconstitutional.
Obasa’s legal action also calls for an expedited hearing, emphasizing the urgency of the matter. “Public interest requires that this case be heard and determined speedily so that legislative activities in the State are not stalled,” the petition states. The suit seeks specific orders, including fixing a hearing date, abridging the time allowed for the defendants to file their responses, and limiting the timeframe for the applicant to file a reply on points of law. Obasa maintains that none of the parties involved would suffer prejudice if the court grants his application for an accelerated process.
Political analysts have observed that Obasa’s lawsuit is more than just a legal challenge—it is a direct confrontation with the current leadership of the Lagos State House of Assembly and a challenge to the legitimacy of the Assembly’s internal procedures. “Obasa’s case is a rallying cry for accountability and transparency in Lagos politics,” commented a political commentator familiar with the case. “If the court rules in his favor, it could force the House to re-evaluate its internal processes and perhaps even lead to a reshuffling of its leadership.”
The security incident at the Assembly further complicates matters. The forced sealing of offices by DSS and police personnel has raised questions about the relationship between state security apparatus and political maneuvers within the legislative arm of government. Critics argue that such measures might be aimed at suppressing dissent and consolidating power in a highly charged political environment. “This isn’t merely a security operation—it’s a clear signal that certain political factions are willing to use state power to silence opposition,” one analyst observed.
The current situation has drawn reactions from various quarters. While some lawmakers within the Assembly have expressed concern over the manner in which the security forces intervened, others see Obasa’s legal challenge as a necessary step towards restoring integrity to the legislative process. The case has already ignited debate on social media, with hashtags like #RestoreObasa and #LegislativeIntegrity trending among Nigerians demanding accountability and fair treatment of their elected representatives.
As the lawsuit proceeds, the outcome could have far-reaching implications not only for the fate of Obasa but also for the future of the Lagos State House of Assembly. Should the court rule in favor of Obasa, it may force the Assembly to revisit its internal governance and disciplinary procedures, potentially leading to significant reforms. Conversely, a ruling against Obasa could further entrench the current leadership, intensifying political tensions in a state already known for its vibrant and sometimes volatile political climate.
The situation remains fluid, and all eyes will be on the Ikeja Division of the State High Court as the case progresses. The legal battle over Obasa’s removal is set to become one of the most closely watched political contests in Lagos this year, with its outcome likely to shape the dynamics of power within the Assembly for years to come.
