![NG-[A_BA[COMP_TABL_ALLC]:TABLETS_160x600](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_utHKyaJHcehO72GCIdJw89QNlQjSifW98F0zWp2JOBcPtxNT4wdbe76kfgpEhXrEuqJ73SA55PJFBkNcgX95VPkHsR8ys8ZhxcreceCQrbqDsLsUnB-Z92R6CIxjWVOvLbQdKfR57myTXdSZsePxnROrDtN9khGA4iRbiP0nn718tHZPkJFg=s0-d)
A Federal High Court in Abuja rejected their prayers for interim orders restraining House of Assembly Speaker Adewale Omirin and other All Progressives Congress (APC) lawmakers, the Chief Judge, Justice Ayodeji Daramola and others from proceeding with the impeachment plot.
Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling on their motion ex-parte, granted them leave for substituted services of all processes in relation to the suit, on the defendants.
The judge ordered Omirin and other defendants in the suit to appear before the court on April 16 to show why the restraining orders sought against them by the plaintiffs should not be granted.
The plaintiffs include Joseph Dele Olugbemi (who claimed to be Speaker), the House of Assembly, Fayose and Kolapo.
Listed as defendants are Omirin, the inspector general of Police (IGP), Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the chief judge.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Ahmed Raji, while moving the ex-parte motion yesterday, argued that since Omirin was in court challenging his impeachment, he could not act under any guise as Speaker, while Olugbemi was acting in his place.
“The gravamen of our complaint is that a former Speaker (in the person of the first defendant) is trying to impersonate the first plaintiff (Dele), who is the Speaker by holding himself out as the Speaker.
“We urge the court to grant our prayers as contained in the motion in the name of public order, peace and safety of the people of Ekiti State,” Raji said.
He drew the judge’s attention to a newspaper publication that one person had been killed since the move to impeach the governor and his deputy began.
Justice Mohammed granted prayers one to four of the eight prayers contained in the ex-parte motion.
He ordered that court processes be served on Omirin and the chief judge through substituted means; by newspaper advertisement.
The judge also ordered that the chief judge be served through the chief registrar of the Ekiti High Court.
The judge refused the fifth to eight prayers, which were the plaintiffs’ key prayers. They include:
•An order of injunction restraining the first defendant and other errant members of the second plaintiff from taking any step or engaging in unlawful activities relating to the impeachment of Peter Ayodele Fayose and Dr. Kolapo Olusola as governor and deputy governor.
•An interim order of injunction restraining the chief judge from taking any step or action in relation to the request of the first defendant for the purpose of appointing a panel of seven persons to investigate the purported allegations of gross misconduct against Peter Ayodele Fayose and Kolapo Olusola.
•An interim order of injunction restraining the police from continuing to abet, give cover, protection or lend credence to the activities of the first defendant and other errant members of the second plaintiff for self-help in disruption of legislative proceedings in the House of Assembly.
•An interim order of injunction setting aside the purported notice of impeachment and the steps taken by the first defendant and other errant members of the second plaintiff in relation to the purported issuance and service of the notice of impeachment for the purpose of commencing and concluding impeachment proceedings against Peter Ayodele Fayose and Dr. Kolapo Olusola.
They intended that the prayers subsist pending the determination of their motion on notice for similar interlocutory injunctions, filed with the originating processes.
“Order is hereby made directing the first to fourth defendants (Omirin, IGP, INEC and Ekiti CJ) to appear before this court on April 16 and show cause why the interim order sought by the plaintiffs via an ex parte motion, dated April 7, should not be made by this court.”
Justice Mohammed ordered that hearing notices be served on the defendants and adjourned the matter till April 16.
0 comments:
Post a Comment