Francis Iwuchukwu 
The legality of Lagos State House of Assembly Speaker Mudashiru Obasa indefinitely adjourning the House has sparked debate among legal minds.
This is because senior lawyers have shared their insights on whether such an action is lawful and how long a Speaker can suspend legislative sittings.
Dr Abiodun Layonu (SAN) said: “It’s not a legal issue, but an internal house matter.” He argued that indefinite adjournment is primarily a procedural issue for the house, not necessarily a legal violation.
“The question of the Speaker adjourning indefinitely is not a legal matter, it is a decision for the House of Assembly.
“If the majority of members disagree, they have the power to call for a vote to overturn it. The Speaker’s decision does not always stand unchallenged. “The House has the authority and procedure to revoke it if necessary.”
On the question of how long a Speaker can adjourn, Layonu noted that the constitution mandates a minimum number of sitting days per year.
“I don’t have the exact number offhand, it’s around 180 days or so. Members must attend sessions, or they risk losing their seats. “The constitution provides guidelines to ensure members fulfil their legislative duties.”
Another SAN, Chief Solo Akuma, emphasised that while a Speaker has the authority to adjourn, it cannot be done in a way that infringes on constitutional provisions regarding legislative sitting days.
“The law specifies the number of days State Assemblies and the National Assembly must sit annually. “If an adjournment disrupts this requirement, it becomes inconsistent with the Constitution. I can’t recall the exact number, but it is clearly stated in the Constitution.”
Akuma clarified that an adjournment is only considered indefinite when no date is fixed, but that does not necessarily mean the House will remain inactive for an extended period.
“If the Speaker adjourns without setting a resumption date, it may appear indefinite. However, he could recall members within a short period.
“The House also has mechanisms, through its rules, to convene sittings even without the Speaker’s directive.” Kunle Adegoke (SAN), maintained that: “Failure to set a definite resumption date raises concerns.” He warned that leaving the House adjourned indefinitely without setting a clear time frame could be problematic.
“Without specifying when the House will reconvene, it raises legal and procedural concerns. The Speaker must have valid grounds for such a decision. “If attendance falls below one-third of the members, Section 96 of the Constitution allows for adjournment due to a lack of quorum.
However, in this case, quorum does not seem to be an issue.” Adegoke also noted that while the Constitution may not explicitly limit the duration of an adjournment, prolonged inaction could have consequences.
“If the Speaker fails to reconvene the House within a reasonable time, it could lead to a crisis. “The House cannot remain in limbo. If the Speaker attempts to render the legislature inactive for too long, it could even become grounds for his removal.”
