a declaration that the trade union amendment bill 2004 is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights of the applicants to freedom from discrimination guaranteed by Section 42 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Article Three of the African Charter on peoples rights (enforcement and ratification) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
At yesterday's session, no Labour leader was present in court neither did the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr Femi Falana who chaired the morning session of the Nigerian Bar Association General Conference in Abuja turned up.
Also, when the ex-parte motion was moved in chambers at the weekend, only a handful of Labour leaders turned up for it.
From 9.00 a.m, yesterday, reporters and a handful of loyal supporters of the die-hard labour union thronged the courtroom. They waited for more than two hours only to be told that the ruling by the vacation judge would be ready by 1 30 p.m.
And when the court was eventually reaching for the proceedings, Justice Baba Yusuf listened to the plea of the Labour legal team led by Mr. Shina Oke who asked that expeditious hearing should given to the suit because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter.
But the judge refused to grant any injunction to halt deliberations on the bill, which was forwarded to the National Assembly by President Olusegun Obasanjo.
He also declined to grant the second lap of the NLC prayer which asked that the leave granted should operate as stay to restrain the National Assembly from passing the Labour Bill pending the determination of the substantive suit. He however granted the plaintiffs the leave to enforce their fundamental rights.
Justice Baba Yusuf said that the court could only nullify the Act if any Section of it offends the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
He said: "I have gone through the document and
listened carefully to the argument of the plaintiff's lawyer and I wish to state that I am prepared to grant them the leave to seek to enforce their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.
"But to the question of whether the leave granted should operate as stay, I am of the opinion that doing that will amount to the judiciary teleguiding the legislature. " The court can only exercise her constitutional powers in this matter after the Act has been passed as stated in the decision of the Court of Appeal in E. U. Ezeoke versus Alhaji Maikarfi.
"Even though the court has been conferred with the wide constitutional powers to annul any piece of legislation that offends the provisions that safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens or legislation that seek to whittle down the powers of the court, I can only exercise such powers when the offensive Act has been enacted."
In rejecting the second prayer asking that the leave granted should operate as stay, the judge stated: "I am of the opinion that it is improper and I am unable to make the order couched in the second prayer."
The judge fixed September 3 for definite hearing of the suit and asked the plaintiffs to ensure that the defendants are served with the processes.`
Guardian Server 1a:3Wednesday:Text:Labour P1 25/08 Irabor
