Court Adjourns Ondo Deputy Gov’s Suit to Encourage Reconciliation

•Assembly: We’re not part of APC peace move, insists on impeachment

Wale Igbintade in Lagos and Fidelis David in Akure

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, yesterday, adjourned further proceedings in the case filed by the Deputy Governor of Ondo State, Hon. Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa on Thursday, September 28, 2023, granting leave Aiyedatiwa to decide on whether to continue to sit on the case or not.

This followed the application of counsel to the Plaintiff, which was predicated on two grounds. First in order to encourage the Reconciliation Committee set up by the National Chairman of the All-Progressives Congress and also to allow the Ondo State House of Assembly enough time to pursue its petition to the National Judicial Council, against the Judge.

But the Assembly has rejected Aiyedatiwa’s letter, urging the state Chief Judge, Olusegun Odusola, to disregard the request by the state Assembly to set up a seven-man panel to investigate the 14 allegations of gross misconduct level against him.

The Assembly through its lawyer, Femi Emodamori, explained that it was not part of the APC reconciliation and was only awaiting the ruling of today, Tuesday 10th October, 2023, before pushing forward with the impeachment process. 

However, at yesterday’s proceedings, counsel to the Plaintiff informed the Court that the National Chairman of the APC set up a Reconciliation Committee on 6th October 2023, to mediate on the dispute between some of the parties to the suit.

It was reasoned that the continuation of the court proceedings would antagonise the settlement efforts as the parties might not be willing to let go of their rigid positions.

Counsel to the Plaintiff further informed the Court that the House of Assembly wrote a petition to the National Judicial Council on 3rd October 2023, where it made very disparaging and uncomplimentary comments against the presiding judge. 

He said the effect of the petition to the NJC is that the House of Assembly has no confidence in the presiding judge and the same assembly cannot at the same time seek to argue any application before the same judge and thus, it will be good to await the action of the NJC on the said petition.

He applied that the petition should be served on all parties so that they couldrespond to it, while deprecating the unguarded utterances and actions of the Assembly.

Responding, counsel to the Ondo State Governor and the Chief Judge of Ondo State, informed the court that they were not parties to the settlement moves and that they would thus prefer that the court should go ahead with the case and first determine the issue of its jurisdiction.

On its part, Counsel to the House of Assembly confirmed that a petition was written to the NJC but that he did not agree with the contents of the said petition as it seeks to undermine the integrity of the court.

He said he had advised the Assembly to withdraw the petition and a letter of withdrawal accompanied with a sworn affidavit was submitted to the NJC on 6th October 2023.

Counsel apologised to the Court for the misconduct of his clients and gave an undertaking that his clients will forthwith show utmost respect to the authority of the Court.

In response, counsel to the Plaintiff informed the Court that since there is an admission of the petition to the NJC, the Court should direct that the petition and the letter of withdrawal should be sent to the court and all the parties.

After listening to the submissions of counsel, the Presiding judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, advised the lawyers and the Nigerian Bar Association to do their best to protect the sanctity of the legal profession and to avoid temptations from politicians to disparage the judiciary.

He argued that if any party iwas dissatisfied with any decision of the Court, they should follow the appropriate channels laid down for remedy.

The judge then adjourned the case to 16th October for ruling on the submissions made and to hear pending applications, if necessary.

Meanwhile, the Assembly, which denied being part of the APC plans to broker peace among the warring parties in the state, stated this in a letter titled: ‘Ondo Assembly, Not Part of APC Reconciliation.’

“I have read some grossly distorted and tendencious online reports about the proceedings of the Federal High Court, Abuja today 9th October, 2023 in the case instituted by the Ondo State Deputy Governor to stop his impeachment. Because of the huge public interest in the case, I feel obliged to correct the distortions.

“The respected learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, had urged the Court to adjourn the case sine die (indefinitely) on two grounds. His first ground was that the All Progressives Congress (APC) had set up a Reconciliation Committee to look into some of the issues, and that there was need for the Court to also promote reconciliation by adjourning indefinitely.

“His second ground was that the Ondo State House of Assembly (my Client) had written a petition to NJC against the Judge, signifying loss or lack of confidence in his lordship, consequent upon which the Judge ought to adjourn indefinitely to await the determination of NJC. The Counsel alleged that the House used derogatory words against the Judge in the Petition.

“In response, I submitted on behalf of my Client, just like all the other respected Counsel for the other Defendants in the case, that we had actually prevailed on our Client to withdraw the Petition, and the Petition had been withdrawn on Friday 6th October, 2023; in which case, it cannot be used as an excuse to seek an indefinite adjournment. I fully apologised to the Court for any wrong choice of words in the Petition, which was authored and signed by my Client.

“On the reported APC reconciliation Committee, our submission was that the State House of Assembly was not privy to it, since media reports state that the Committee is to reconcile the Ondo State Governor and his Deputy, whereas impeachment is a pure legislative proceedings. In any event, I submitted further, Ondo State House of Assembly comprises members from different political parties, and not just APC.

“Again, we submitted that based on Section 188 (1)-(9) of the Constitution, every stage in the impeachment process is time bound, and that adjourning the case indefinitely with an ex parte order in place would amount to an invitation to constitutional anarchy.

“Based on various submissions of Counsel, His lordship agreed that the issue of jurisdiction must first be decided. His lordship refused the application to adjourned sine die, and instead adjourned the case till 16th October for applications challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to be heard and determined.

“Interestingly, it was in the open Court today that the Claimant served my client (the State House of Assembly) the Originating Summons filed as far back as 21st September, 2024 and the ex parte order made by the Court as far back as 26th October, 2023, thereby confirming my repeated public assertions that my Client was never served any of those processes.

“Happily, the Court duly noted the fact that we were just served in the open Court today in it’s record. We have applied for the Certified True Copy of the record of proceedings.

“Instructively, the Court also failed to renew the ex parte order for injunction. Under the Federal High Court Rules, the ex parte order would lapse 14 days after service, unless the Judge renews it, particularly in this case against the Chief Judge of Ondo State. The 14 days, in the case of the Chief Judge of Ondo State, from my simple arithmetic, expires tomorrow 10th October, 2023,” the Assembly added.