Oil subsidy scam: Otedola has no case, Lawan tells court

Written by Tunde Oyesina, Abuja
The former chairman of the House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee on Oil Subsidy Probe, Honourable Farouk Lawan, has told an Abuja High court that Lagos- based oil magnate, Femi Otedola and his company, Zenon Petroleum & Gas Limited, have no case against him as no cause of action had arisen to warrant the suit.
The position of Lawan was contained in his preliminary objection filed by his counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju of Chief Afe Babalola’s chambers and exclusively obtained by the Nigerian Tribune.
Otedola and Zenon Petroleum & Gas Limited had dragged the Speaker of the  House of Representatives, Aminu  Tambuwal and Lawan before an Abuja High Court claiming the sum of N250 billion as compensation for business losses he suffered by the actions of the defendants.
Other defendants in the suit are the clerk of the National Assembly and the National Assembly.
Counsel for Otedola, Babajide Koku SAN, is claiming the sum of N100 billion as general damages for acts of intimidation, loss of goodwill and patronages occasioned by the acts of the speaker and Farouk.
Otedola is  further claiming another N150 billion against the defendants as exemplary damages for their alleged oppressive and arbitrary actions against him and  his company.
In his notice of preliminary objection, Lawan argued that he enjoyed legislative immunity and, therefore,  could not be sued having regard to the averments in the statement of claim filed in the suit.
He cited Section 3 of of the Legislative Houses(Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. L12, Laws of the Federation, 2004.
The section provides that “no civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of a Legislative House- (a) in respect of words spoken before that House or a committee thereof; or (b) in respect of words written in a report to that House or to any committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him therein.”
Ogunwumiju submitted that the plaintiff’s complaint bordered on the words spoken by Lawan and as such could not be entertained by the court.
He also argued that there was nowhere in the statement of claim where Otedola had alleged that the Federal Government had published any White Paper or accepted the recommendations of the ad hoc committee.
He submitted that in the absence or clear averments in the statement of claim showing that a White Paper had been published by the Federal Government or that the recommendations of the ad-hoc committee had been accepted and approved by the Federal Government, the plaintiff’s suit discloses no reasonable cause of action.