By Haruna Salami
The controversy surrounding ‘Control of Infectious Diseases Bill” before the House of Representatives is far from over.
The bill which has passed second reading in the House and now awaiting public hearing has become a subject of litigation.
A statement by the spokesperson of the House of Representatives, Hon. Benjamin Kalu on Sunday however expressed “dismay” about the way a court ruling on the matter has been reported in the media.
According to Kalu, the House of Representatives notes with dismay the misinterpretations of the decision of the court in suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2020 on 13th May 2020, asserting that a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered the House to suspend the ongoing process of the consideration of the Control of Infectious Diseases Bill, 2020.
“The truth of the matter is that although the applicant, by way of a motion exparte, sought a court order suspending the consideration of the Bill by the House, the court in its wisdom and in the interest of justice and fair hearing, declined to grant the reliefs sought by Applicant in order to enable the Respondents in the case to appear before it and enter a defence.
The court in its wisdom said “upon hearing this Motion Ex-parte as moved by learned counsel to the Applicant and upon careful consideration of the averments in the affidavit in support, Exhibits attached and the written and oral address of learned counsel, the Court is of the view that bearing in mind the weighty averments in the affidavit in support which are intended to stay the Legislative actions of the Respondents in regard to the Bill in disputation and the exigencies of the times (that is to say the COVID-19 pandemic) and the attendant hysteria in the polity, the Court is of the opinion, that it is in the interest of justice to hear the Respondents before making a long term decision in this case.
Therefore the court made an Order mandating the Respondents (House of Representatives) to appear before it on the 20th day of May 2020 “to show Cause why the application of the Applicant should not be granted.”
“The House, therefore, wishes to put the order of the court in proper perspective and state that the act of legislation is a sacred and constitutional responsibility which should not be subjected to flimsy or superficial reportage in the interest of our democracy”, Kalu said.
