The Ondo State House of Assembly, led by its Speaker, Olamide Oladiji, has withdrawn an appeal they lodged against the Deputy Governor of the state, Mr. Lucky Aiyedatiwa, who faced an impeachment threat over his alleged acts of gross misconduct.
The lawmakers, through their team of lawyers led by Dr. Remi Peter O., told the appellate court that their decision to terminate further proceedings in the matter was “in the interest of peace.”
“My lords, the parties in this matter have found a political solution to their problems.
“Therefore, on behalf of the appellants, we are here to withdraw this appeal.
“The instruction to this effect was given to us yesterday, and we have filed this morning the notice of withdrawal.
“In the interest of peace, we seek to withdraw this appeal,” counsel for the appellants added.
His application to withdraw the appeal was not opposed by the lawyer who represented the deputy governor, Mr. A.A. Adewusi, who confirmed that he was served with all the necessary processes to that effect.
Likewise, all the other respondents in the matter, including the Department of State Services, DSS, which was represented by Mr. I. Awo, said they were not opposed to the peace moves and withdrawal of the appeal.
Consequently, a three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, accordingly dismissed the appeal.
“This appeal, having been withdrawn, is hereby dismissed,” Justice Tsammani held.
It will be recalled that the Ondo lawmakers had approached the appellate court to challenge an interim injunction that was issued by the Federal High Court in Abuja, which restrained them from impeaching the deputy governor from office for allegedly engaging in actions they said were tantamount to misconduct.
The lawmakers equally asked the trial judge, Emeka Nwite, to vacate the order he made against them on September 26, which was based on an exparte application and an affidavit of urgency that was filed before the high court by Aiyedatiwa.
However, when the matter came up before the high court on October 30, the embattled deputy governor, asked the trial judge to hand off his substantive suit and await the outcome of the appeal by the lawmakers.
Aiyedatiwa’s lawyer, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, prayed the judge to suspend the proceedings before him since the appellate court was already seized of the facts of the case.
He told the court that both the Speaker of the Ondo State House of Assembly and the legislative house itself, who were cited as the 4th and 6th defendants in the matter, went before the appellate court to set aside the interim order that stopped his planned impeachment.
“The 4th and 6th defendants went on appeal, four days after the matter was adjourned for ruling. They said they no longer have confidence in the court.
“Since the matter is already before the Court of Appeal, going ahead with these proceedings will put this court on a collusion cause with a superior authority.
“The defendants cannot approbate and reprobate. The appeal will impact the proceedings of this court, and as ministers in the temple of justice, the defendants owe this court the sacred duty of full disclosure of any developments that may affect the jurisdiction of the court.
“It was their duty to have brought the attention of the court to the fact that the appeal had been entered since October 20. It is their action that robs this court of its jurisdiction.
“It will be neater and better to hands off and allow the appellate court to determine the matter,” Aiyedatiwa’s lawyer pleaded.
However, all the defendants, through their respective lawyers, urged Justice Nwite to refuse Aiyedatiwa’s request and proceed with ruling on applications they filed to vacate the ex-parte order that halted the impeachment process.
Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, who is the third defendant in the matter, through his counsel, Mr. Kassim Gbadamosi, accused Aiyedatiwa of subtly attempting to arrest the ruling of the court.
He wondered why the plaintiff, who did not file the appeal, would be the one asking for a stay of proceedings in the matter.
“This matter has to do with the removal of a deputy governor under the Constitution.
“In view of the provisions of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the subject matter herein, which is the basis and foundation upon which the plaintiff predicated his case, which is Section 188, your lordship should strike out this suit.
“The application by the plaintiff is akin to arresting your lordship’s ruling, which is unknown to the law. We urge your lordship not to succumb to the request but to go ahead and deliver the ruling.
“The attempt by the plaintiff to arrest the ruling was not even done in consonance with the law. They did not file for stay of proceeding. What we have here is an oral application to arrest the ruling of this court.
“More over, the appeal by the 4th defendant is against an exparte order. It cannot be said categorically that an appeal has been entered because they have a motion for extension of time to file a record of the appeal, which they have taken to the Court of Appeal.
“Assuming that the record has been entered, which we are not conceding, the position of the law is that entering an appeal does not operate as a stay of proceeding or stay of execution of an order of court.
“The rules require a party to file for a stay of proceeding or execution, even when an appeal has been entered.
“We filed a motion to set aside the exparte order as well as for dismissal of the substantive suit.
“Our position is that this court does not have jurisdiction at all to entertain the suit.
“Even with what we are doing now, we are saying your lordship does not have the power to do it.
“That a party exercised its right of appeal does not mean that such a party does not have confidence in the court, as is suggested.
“However, in the most unlikely event that your lordship may want to succumb to the temptation of the plaintiff, since the application is coming from a plaintiff that filed an affidavit of urgency before this court, in view of other equally fundamental developments in the matter since the last proceedings, I will be praying for my lord to make a pronouncement that the ex-parte injunction itself is now invalid by efflusion of time,” Governor Akeredolu’s lawyer argued.
Aside from praying to the court to vacate the ex-parte order, which they insisted had since elapsed, the defendants also urged the court to strike out Aiyedatiwa’s suit.
The high court had ordered the Ondo State House of Assembly to suspend the impeachment process, pending the hearing and determination of the suit that was brought before it by the deputy governor.
The plaintiff had, among other things, prayed the court to stop Governor Akeredolu, SAN, from nominating a new deputy governor and forwarding the same to the Ondo State House of Assembly for confirmation, pending the determination of the suit.
Cited as 1st to 6th defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1294/2023, were the Inspector-General of Police, the Department of State Services, DSS, Governor Akeredoku, Speaker of the House of Assembly, Chief Judge of Ondo State, as well as the House of Assembly itself.
After he heard the ex-parte motion, Justice Nwite held that it was in the interest of justice to issue the interim preservative orders.
Justice Nwite equally issued an order of interim injunction, restraining Governor Akeredolu and his servants or privies from harassing, intimidating, embarrassing, and preventing Aiyedatiwa from carrying out the functions of his office as deputy governor of Ondo State, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. – Vanguard.
