Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High
Court, Abuja Thursday rejected an oral
application by lawyer to Governor Ayodele
Fayose of Ekiti State for an order stopping the
on-going move to impeach the governor.
Fayose’s lawyer, Ahmed Raji (SAN) had
shortly before the end of proceedings in the
case seeking to stop the on-going
impeachment move, applied orally for an order
directing parties to maintain status quo ante
bellum “to stop things from degenerating
further.”
JusticeMohammed, in a ruling, rejected Raji’s
prayer and upheld the argument by Terence
Vembe, lawyer to Ekiti State Speaker, Adewale
Omirin, to the effect that granting such prayer
will amount to the court amending its earlier
ruling that the defendants were still within
time show cause, as earlier ordered by the
court.
The judge had, last Wednesday, refused
Fayose’s ex-parte prayers for interim
injunctions restraining Omirin and other
defendants in the case from proceeding with
the impeachment move.
Instead, Justice Mohammed ordered the
defendants to show cause why the orders of
interim injunction sought by the plaintiffs
should not be granted.
Plaintiffs in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/
CS/302/2015 include Olugbemi Joseph Dele
(who claimed to be Speaker of the State
Assembly), Ekiti State House of Assembly,
Fayose and his deputy, Olusola Kolapo.
Listed as defendants are Omirin, the Inspector
General of Police (IGP), Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Chief
Judge, Ekiti State.
At the commencement of proceedings
Thursday, Raji urged the court to grant the
order of interim injunction on the ground that
none of the defendants complied with the
court’s order of April 8 directing them to show
cause.
“None of the defendants has filed any paper
and already a life has been lost on the
account of trying to carry out the illegal act
(impeachment). To save more life, I urge my
Lord to grant the reliefs 5, 6, 7 and 8 on our
motion paper.”
Vembe objected and told the court that his
client were contesting the mode of service of
the court processes on him, which he said,
was done through a newspaper publication on
April 11 which was a public holiday.
He further faulted the service effected by the
plaintiffs via a publication in the Nigerian
Tribune newspaper on April 11 on the ground
that movements were restricted on that day
owing to the governorship and House of
Assembly elections held nationwide.
In a brief ruling, Justice Mohammed upheld
Raji’s argument that Vembe could not
canvass any argument on the issue of service
orally without putting it in writing as required
under the court’s rules.
Vembe proceeded to argue that his client was
still within time to obey the court’s order
directing him and other defendants to show
cause.
Although Raji objected to Vembe’s further
argument that his client was still within time,
Justice Mohammed, in yet another brief ruling,
upheld Vembe’s argument.
The judge noted that the publication ought
not to have been done on a public holiday. He
held that the three days within which the
defendants were required to comply with the
court’s order began to run on Tuesday, April
14 and will end on Friday, April 17.
“As of today, the 1st defendant is still within
time as provided by Order 36 Rule 13 of the
Federal High Court Rules,” the judge said.
Further hearing in the case has been fixed for
April 29.
The plaintiffs are, in the substantive suit,
seeking nine prayers among which is “an order
setting aside the purported notice of
impeachment and all steps taken by the 1st
defendant (Omirin) with other errant members
of the 2nd plaintiff (Ekiti State House of
Assembly) in relation to the purported
issuance and service of the said notice of
impeachment for the purpose of commencing
and concluding the impeachment proceedings
against Peter Ayodele Fayose and Dr. Olusola
Kolapo, except and until there is absolute
compliance with provisions of section 36(1)
and section 188(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the
1999 Constitution (as amended).”
Comments
Post a Comment