By Muhammad Tanko Shittu
Plateau state High Court 1, presiding over by Justice Pius Damulak, has adjourned a matter pending before it challenging the Plateau state House of Assembly till July 31, for its ruling.
The matter, which was filed by Hon. John Bull Shekarau, is challenging the house over his impeachment as the former deputy speaker.
In his suit the plaintiff is seeking the court to determine wither or not the process that led his impeachment as former deputy speaker was in tandem with the provision of section 98 (2), of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, the plaintiff’s counsel, Barrister Boniface Ngwe, had told the court that their originating sermons was supported by an 18-paragraph affidavit.
He said: “Besides the fact that there was no motion, no voting, no room for debate, on the floor of the house, there was no resolution signed by the speaker of the house in tandem with Order 5 sub 1(iv) of the House Rules of the Plateau state house of Assembly 2008 as amended.”
He added: “In the absence of such resolution signed by the speaker of the house the talk about the removal of the plaintiff is merely an empty noise.”
Responding, counsel to the defendants, Dr. Kwede Francis, also told the court that they had filed a motion of preliminary objection (PO), and adopted a written address challenging the jurisdiction of the court to determine the matter.
Kwede said: “The motion is supported by an 18 paragraph affidavit; we have also filed in a written address on the point of law in its support,” urging the court to dismiss the plaintiff action to allow “the sleep dog to die off.”
However, the plaintiff’s counsel said they had filed and adopted two processes in response to the PO, arguing that the PO had no affidavit in its support, contrary to Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act 2011, with specific reference to paragraph 3 of the said Act.
He urged the court to throw out the objection and grant the plaintiff the relief sought in the suit.
But Kwede, in his response to Ngwe’s submission, argued that the section in reference was talking about heresy, adding that “if PO is talking on the point of law it strictly obeys the law even without affidavit.”
