Against backdrop of the thick fog of impeachment hovering over the embattled Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti state, AMEH EJEKWONYILO writes on the governor’s resort to the judiciary he allegedly attacked recently through his “thugs” before his official swearing-in, as his last hope after his earlier appeal to President-elect, General Muhammadu Buhari to intervene in the crisis failed to materialize.
Last week, Ayodele Fayose approached the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja with an exparte application, praying the court to stop the impeachment moves being planned by the All Progressives Congress (APC) house of assembly lawmakers against him and his deputy, Kolapo Olusola. But the presiding judge, Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed, refused to grant the ex parte application.
Rather than granting the prayers for interim injunction, Justice Mohammed ordered the defendants in the suit, including the APC factional Speaker of the House of Assembly, Adewale Omirin, and the Chief Judge of the state, Justice Ayodeji Daramola, to appear in court this Thursday, April 16.
The court had ordered the defendants to appear in court to show cause why the order of interim injunction being sought by the plaintiffs halting the impeachment proceedings should not be granted.
The court only granted prayers contained in the ex parte application relating to service of the court processes on the defendants.
Apart from Omirin and Justice Daramola, other defendants in the suit are the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Suleiman Abba, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The plaintiffs in the suit are the Speaker of the House of Assembly (described as being occupied by the Peoples Democratic Party factional Speaker, Olugbemi Joseph Dele); Ekiti State House of Assembly, Fayose and Olusola.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr. Ahmed Raji (SAN), had sought the interim injunctions halting the impeachment moves through an ex parte application dated and filed on April 7, 2015.
Raji had urged the court to grant the interim injunction setting aside the impeachment notice already served on the governor and the deputy and also restraining the defendants from taking any further steps in the impeachment moves.
The lawyer argued that the act by Omirin to issue an impeachment notice and serve same on the governor and the deputy governor as Speaker of the House of Assembly amounted to impersonating the incumbent Speaker.
The plaintiffs had urged the court to grant the prayers and make the interim injunctions to subsist pending the determination of their motion on notice for interlocutory injunctions seeking the same set of prayers.
Raji urged the court to grant the prayers “in the interest of justice, public order, peace and safety of the people of the state”.
But the judge in his ruling rather than granting the interim injunctions ordered the parties to appear in court to convince the court why the plaintiffs’ prayers for interim injunction should not be granted.
Justice Mohammed ruled: “The order is hereby made directing the 1st to 4th defendants (Omirin, IGP, INEC and Ekiti CJ), to appear before this court on April 16, 2015 and show cause why the interim order sought by the plaintiffs via an ex parte motion dated April 7, 2015 should not be made by this court.”
But the court granted other prayers contained in the ex parte motion relating to service of the court processes, including the main suit) on the defendants.
The court granted leave to serve Omirin and Justice Daramola, who reside in Ekiti state, outside jurisdiction.
It also ordered that Omirin and the Ekiti State Chief Judge be served through advertisement in a national newspaper.
It also made a separate order that the Chief Judge be served with processes of court through the office of the Chief Registrar of the Ekiti State High Court.
In their main suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/302/2015, the plaintiffs are 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).”
Other prayers being sought by the plaintiffs include: “An order prohibiting the 1st defendant (Omirin) and other errant members of the 2nd plaintiff (Ekiti State House of Assembly) from further taking any step, or engaging in unlawful activities relating to the impeachment of 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).
“An order prohibiting the Chief Judge of Ekiti State from taking any step or action in relation to the request of the 1st defendant (Omirin) for the purpose of appointing a panel of seven persons to investigate and purported allegations of gros misconduct 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).”
Justice Mohammed on Wednesday ordered that hearing notices be served on all the defendants and adjourned the matter till April 16.
