AN Akure High Court, sitting in Ondo State, yesterday, struck out a suit instituted by the embattled Deputy Governor of the state, Mr. Lucky Aiyedatiwa, challenging his impeachment by the House of Assembly.
In his ruling, Justice O. Akintan-Osadebay declined jurisdiction to avoid conflicting verdicts between an Ondo High Court and Abuja Federal High Court.
Justice Akintan-Osadebay ruled that it was a gross abuse of the court process to engage in “forum shopping, by instituting the same case in Akure and Abuja High Court.”
Aiyedatiwa had approached the court, with suit number AK/348/2023 filed on September 25, 2023, to stop the House of Assembly from impeaching him.
The deputy governor sought a declaration that “the House of Assembly is not competent to proceed on his impeachment in breach of his constitutional and fundamental rights to fair hearing and that the sacking of his media aides and subjecting him to the Ministry of Information headed by a Commissioner amounts to a breach of his rights and privileges as a deputy governor.”
Aiyedatiwa is also seeking a declaration that his “office, tenure, status, rights and privileges are protected, guaranteed and secured by the Constitution, and the declaration that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations as a Deputy Governor of Ondo State by the House of Assembly, he is entitled to a fair hearing and that given the utterances and conduct of the House of Assembly so far, there is likelihood of bias against him in the impeachment process.”
According to him, in conducting media trials against him without serving him with any notice of gross misconduct, the House of Assembly has constituted itself into accuser, investigator, prosecutor and judge.
Aiyedatiwa then sought orders of injunction to stop the House of Assembly from initiating, continuing or proceeding with the process of his removal from office as the Deputy Governor of Ondo State.
He also accused the House of Assembly of persecuting him without lawful basis in conspiracy with certain persons who are gladiators in political circles.
Aiyedatiwa goes to Appeal Court
Reacting to the ruling of the Akure High Court, Mr Aiyedatiwa in a Notice of Appeal filed at the registry of the Akure High Court, raised five grounds of appeal against the decision of the judge.
Amongst the grounds of appeal is a complaint that the judge erred in law in combining the hearing of his application for an amendment together with the application of the House of Assembly challenging the jurisdiction of the court, which amounts to a denial of his right to a fair hearing.
Also, part of the grounds of appeal complained that the judge was wrong in holding that the case constitutes an abuse of the process of the court as the parties and the subject matter of the case in Akure are different from those of the case in Abuja.
The appellant, therefore, requested the Court of Appeal to set aside the ruling of the judge.
Court order still in force —Aiyedatiwa’s counsel
Meanwhile, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, the counsel to Aiyedatiwa, in a statement in Akure, said that the order of the Federal High Court Abuja remained in force.
Adegboruwa said: “It has become necessary to emphasize the fact that the order of the Federal High Court, Abuja made on September 26, 2023, remains in force, valid and subsisting.
“The various orders of injunction were made pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice. The motion on notice is still pending.
“It is not correct that an order of the federal high court automatically expires after 14 days.
“This may be the case if the judge that granted the order did not direct otherwise.
“In this case, the judge directed otherwise by stating that the order will be in force until the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
“Furthermore, there are two applications filed by the defendants in the suit against the orders of the court. One is by the Governor of Ondo State to set aside the orders, while the other is by the Ondo House of Assembly to stay the execution of the orders.
“In law, an ex-parte order made pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice remains in force, valid, binding and subsisting until the said motion on notice is heard and determined.”
