Former Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, and a Minister, Olorunnibe Mamora, has described the removal of the immediate past Speaker of the Lagos Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, as constitutional.

This is coming on the heels of Obasa maintaining that his removal as Speaker was unconstitutional, saying that the due process was not followed.

Mamora was the former Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, from 1999 to 2003. He represented Lagos East Senatorial District from 2003 to 2011, Minister of State for Health from 2019 to 2022, and the Minister of Science and Technology from 2022 to 2023 under the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari.

Recall that Obasa was removed by 35 out of the 40 members of the assembly on January 13, 2025 over allegations of misconduct and mismanagement of funds and replaced with his former Deputy, Mojisola Lasbat-Meranda.

Obasa, spoke on Saturday amid cheers from members of Mandate Movement and politicians from some local governments in the state at the official residence of the Lagos Speaker in GRA, Ikeja.

The former speaker stressed that the allegations made against him by the lawmakers could not be substantiated, and that he is the most experienced lawmaker in the assembly having been elected six times since 2003.

Mamora speaks

Speaking exclusively with Vanguard, Mamora explained, “He who must come to equity must come with clean hands. That’s my position. I like legislature a lot.

“Let me correct the impression. I have heard people say this in media discourse. If you look at the constitution you would not find impeachment. What you find is removal. There is difference between removal and impeachment.

“Impeachment connotes bringing allegations of wrong doing formally, in presenting before an offending public officer that is impeachment.

“That is when a formal presentation of allegations of wrong doing is presented to a public officer that is impeachment.

“But allegation do not necessary amount to guilt. It only says that these are the allegations that have been brought formally, which the officer has to respond to, that is impeachment.

“If you are now convicted on the basis of allegations and a kind of sentence is passed. They may be spurious, that is they can not be really established. So, they remain allegations.

But when allegations are established leading to kind of sentence, then it may lead to removal. Allegations brought against you through impeachment may not necessary lead to remobval.

For example, President Clinton was impeached over Lewinsky, was he removed. No. He was impeached not removed. By their own constitution it’s the house that will bring impeachment notice, But, the final stage will be by the Senate. It got to the Senate it ws defeated.

But our own constitution does not talk of impeachment in any case, what we have is removal of the President, governor or the Speaker.

The removal of a Speaker in the House of Assembly is or the National Assembly or Senate President is simple.

“What I mean by that is that once members bring a motion that is supported by the two third of members then the speaker or at thje national level vacate the seat, that’s all. It does not even say you should explain. It is just a simple process.

“Because, the speaker, is just first among equals. That is why the process for the removal of the Speaker or Senate President is different from the removal of Mr. Governor, deputy Governor or President, or Vice President.

“Because in the case of the Governor, it is the whole state that voted to put him in office that is why the procedure for his or her removal is a complex process.

The allegations must be supported by one third to be brought and served notice on the holder of the office, wait for his or her response. set up a panel, report comes back to the house and the house come with a two third majority of the house. So you see it’s a complex process.

“But for the speaker, you just sat down, because the speaker is elected by simple majority but the constitution says by two third majority of the house, Speaker can be removed. The Constitution does not even say you should state the allegations.

It only says if you have the support of not less than two third majority of the members, in support of the motion for the removal of the speaker supported by not less than two third, and the speaker vacates. It dis not even say yiu should confront him with the allegations.

Impeachment on Obasa, Constitutional

“Obasa was impeached and removed because there was a presentation which I watched on television. There was presentation of allegations against him. And it was on the basis of the allegations that the house decided to remove him.
“We need to get it clear. What we do here is that we use the word impeachment and removal inter-changeably as they are the same. I need to correct that.

“There could be impeachment without removal. The constitution under section 92, sub section two or thereabout talks of removal that the speaker shall vacate if a motion is presented supported by two third of members. That’s all.

So, allegations were presented against Obasa and on that basis the members went ahead to remove him in consonant with the section 92 of the constitution. So, the removal of Obasa is constitutional.

“If the allegations as read out on the floor of the assembly were true,, am not in the position to determine the veracity because am not a member of the assembly, but as presented by movers of that motion, if they were right then they would be justified to do what they did.

Disrespecting the office of Governor

“I heard of the allegation of Obasa disrespecting the office of the governor and of its true it won’t be right to do that. The Governor remains the number one person of the state as the chief executive. I would not expect the speaker to be rude or show disrespect to the governor of the state no matter what.

But I can not deny the knowledge of a meeting by the GAC, am not a member of GAC, of the Speaker showing disrespect to the Governor. That will not be right of the speaker if you ask me to disrespect the Governor.”