Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja Thursday rejected an oral application by lawyer to Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State for an order stopping the on-going move to impeach the governor.
Fayose’s lawyer, Ahmed Raji (SAN) had shortly before the end of proceedings in the case seeking to stop the on-going impeachment move, applied orally for an order directing parties to maintain status quo ante bellum “to stop things from degenerating further.”
Justice Mohammed, in a ruling, rejected Raji’s prayer and upheld the argument by Terence Vembe, lawyer to Ekiti State Speaker, Adewale Omirin, to the effect that granting such prayer will amount to the court amending its earlier ruling that the defendants were still within time show cause, as earlier ordered by the court.
The judge had, last Wednesday, refused Fayose’s ex-parte prayers for interim injunctions restraining Omirin and other defendants in the case from proceeding with the impeachment move.
Instead, Justice Mohammed ordered the defendants to show cause why the orders of interim injunction sought by the plaintiffs should not be granted.
Plaintiffs in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/302/2015 include Olugbemi Joseph Dele (who claimed to be Speaker of the State Assembly), Ekiti State House of Assembly, Fayose and his deputy, Olusola Kolapo.
Listed as defendants are Omirin, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Chief Judge, Ekiti State.
At the commencement of proceedings Thursday, Raji urged the court to grant the order of interim injunction on the ground that none of the defendants complied with the court’s order of April 8 directing them to show cause.
“None of the defendants has filed any paper and already a life has been lost on the account of trying to carry out the illegal act (impeachment). To save more life, I urge my Lord to grant the reliefs 5, 6, 7 and 8 on our motion paper.”
Vembe objected and told the court that his client were contesting the mode of service of the court processes on him, which he said, was done through a newspaper publication on April 11 which was a public holiday.
He further faulted the service effected by the plaintiffs via a publication in the Nigerian Tribune newspaper on April 11 on the ground that movements were restricted on that day owing to the governorship and House of Assembly elections held nationwide.
In a brief ruling, Justice Mohammed upheld Raji’s argument that Vembe could not canvass any argument on the issue of service orally without putting it in writing as required under the court’s rules.
Vembe proceeded to argue that his client was still within time to obey the court’s order directing him and other defendants to show cause.
Although Raji objected to Vembe’s further argument that his client was still within time, Justice Mohammed, in yet another brief ruling, upheld Vembe’s argument.
The judge noted that the publication ought not to have been done on a public holiday. He held that the three days within which the defendants were required to comply with the court’s order began to run on Tuesday, April 14 and will end on Friday, April 17.
“As of today, the 1st defendant is still within time as provided by Order 36 Rule 13 of the Federal High Court Rules,” the judge said.
Further hearing in the case has been fixed for April 29.
The plaintiffs are, in the substantive suit, 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).”
Organised Labour in Ekiti State has directed workers to observe a sit-at-home tomorrow to pray for peace in the state.
The decision followed a meeting held yesterday by the leadership of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Trade Union Congress (TUC) and Joint Negotiating Council (JNC) on the political situation in the state.
A statement by NLC Secretary, Ade Obatoye; TUC Secretary J.A. Adebayo and JNC Secretary J.O. Oladipupo said the labour unions will address an “international press conference” today to call for peace and stability in the state.
The labour unions also earmarked today and tomorrow for a peace forum to express solidarity with the government.
The move is believed to be in response to the crisis in the House of Assembly which culminated in a notice of impeachment signed by 19 lawmakers against Governor Ayo Fayose.
Soldiers and riot policemen have reduced on the streets of Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State capital.
Security build-up reached a climax last week with an attempt by the All Progressives Congress (APC) members of the House of Assembly to continue impeachment proceedings against Governor Ayo Fayose.
The development sparked violent protests in Ado-Ekiti and other parts of the state.
A move round Ado-Ekiti yesterday barely 24 hours after the Supreme Court verdict, which validated Fayose’s election, revealed that fully armed regular and mobile policemen hitherto stationed at strategic locations, including places identified as hot spots, have vacated the places.
All Armored Personnel Carriers (APC) have also disappeared from where they were stationed.
Armed soldiers deployed for the same purpose are no longer at the entrance of the governor’s office.
But armed policemen are still keeping vigil in the House of Assembly.
Many civil servants whose offices are close to the Assembly complex, who had stopped reporting for work because of the crisis, have since resumed.
They were, however, not allowed to move in their vehicles as the troubled House of Assembly complex, which is situated within the new secretariat was still being heavily guarded.
A security source said there was no need keeping security agents on the road since peace has returned to the state
Residents continued their celebration of Fayose’s victory as most of the notable relaxation joints and road-side beer parlors were filled up with admirers, who bought free drinks and pepper soups for passers-by.
An attempt to frame up a member of the Ekiti State House of Assembly in the killing of a 32-year-old man last week during a protest to stop the planned impeachment of Governor Ayodele Fayose has backfired. The woman who claimed to be the deceased’s mother and laid the allegation against Hon. Gabriel Folorunso Ogundele has been exposed as an impersonator. ODUNAYO OGUNMOLA reports.
Ekiti State was seized by an orgy of violence last week over the impeachment proceedings against Governor Ayodele Fayose.
Nineteen members of the House of Assembly who are members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) sent a notice of impeachment to Fayose and his deputy, Kolapo Olusola, accusing them of gross misconduct.
The lawmakers accused Fayose of eight impeachable offences.
An attempt by the APC lawmakers who had been in and out of the state since the Assembly crisis began last November to return to their legislative chambers was greeted with violent protests by Fayose’s supporters.
Thugs, hoodlums and other miscreants laid siege to all roads that lead to the state in a bid to prevent the legislators from sitting to firm up the impeachment.
Federal highways and state roads were blocked with rods, logs of wood, drums, trailers and other heavy objects to prevent human and vehicular traffic.
One of the roads affected was the Ilesa-Aramoko-Ado Highway through which the lawmakers intended to enter the state capital.
At Efon-Itawure junction, scores of loyalists of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) blocked the major road, awaiting the legislators.
One of the protesting PDP supporters was a 32-year-old man, Modupe Taiwo, who joined other party members from Efon Alaaye to the Itawure junction, which hosts a checkpoint manned by soldiers.
Eyewitnesses told The Nation on a fact-finding mission to Efon last Friday that Taiwo was allegedly killed by security agents while thugs armed with guns and other dangerous weapons massed at the Itawure military checkpoint violently protesting to block the route through which the APC lawmakers were coming to Ado-Ekiti.
Some residents of Efon confirmed that the incident occurred long before the lawmakers arrived the checkpoint, when the thugs became unruly shooting at the security men.
Eyewitnesses revealed that Modupe was killed in the exchange of gunfire and his body was conveyed to the mortuary.
Despite the fact that the Police are yet to conclude their investigation, PDP members are pointing fingers in the direction of the lawmaker representing Efon Constituency, Hon. Gabriel Folorunso Ogundele as being responsible for the killing, an allegation vehemently denied by the Assembly member who belongs to the APC.
About twenty four hours later, a woman, Mrs. Apeke Olaya, appeared at the Government House, Ado-Ekiti posing as the mother of the deceased.
In a dramatic and theatrical manner, Mrs. Olaya at a news conference organized by the state government claimed that Modupe was killed by Ogundele giving a different account of circumstances leading to the death of the young man.
Mrs. Olaya told reporters at the Government House that he was ‘pained’ by the death of her ‘son’ at the military checkpoint incident.
She cried, yelled, shed tears and rolling on the ground saying in Yoruba “Ogundele ti pa mi o, Ogundele ti pa mi o”, which literally means “Ogundele has killed me, Ogundele has killed me”.
Giving account of how the incident happened, Mrs Olaya told the news conference that: “He (Modupe) was 32 years old. It happened at Fabo, at Efon Junction on the way to Ijebu-Ijesha.
“Ogundele that shot him is a member of the House of Assembly, he is an indigene of Efon. They say his name is Gabriel Ogundele.
“They said he was coming with some OPC members from Lagos and they made a detour in Osun, but they were coming to Ekiti through Ijebu-Ijesha.
“What I learnt was that when the convoy in which Ogundele was travelling arrived at Fabo Junction, they opened fire there.
“He was said to have shot at the protesters at the junction who had mounted a roadblock, claiming that he knew that Efon people were heady and stubborn.
“He was said to have announced that he was going to resume duties at the Ekiti State House of Assembly, of which I knew nothing about.
“I was told that my son had hidden behind a car, when everyone else had scampered to safety. He had been shot at the back.
“The vehicle with which he was being taken to the hospital ran out of fuel on the way, they continued with a motorcycle, which also ran out of fuel at Adagba farm settlement.
“They eventually got another motorcycle with which they got him to Odufunke Hospital, where the doctor had to call the police to ascertain his identity, having been brought as a gunshot victim.
“While all these were going on, my son had started to foam from the mouth and while they were trying to give him transfusion, he gave up the ghost.
“His pregnant wife, Yinka has two children. I don’t know what to do now. He is my fourth child and has been the sponsor of the family”.
Mrs. Olaya’s theatrics which was watched by bewildered and stupefied relations is causing disquiet in Efon community where many people are wondering why she was claiming paternity of Modupe when the deceased’s mother is alive.
The maternity scandal is already causing ripples in both the Olaya and Akinyemi families and the entire Efon Community with relations, neighbours and sympathizers expressing disgust with the scandal.
Few days after, the true mother of the deceased, Mrs. Deborah Kehinde Akinyemi, has expressed shock on the alleged impersonation.
Mrs. Akinyemi, in a chat with The Nation last Friday at her residence in Idagba Quarters of Efon Alaaye, said she was surprised that Mrs. Olaya could claim to be the mother of her son at a news conference held at the Government House, Ado-Ekiti in the wake of the killing.
But the authentic mother of Modupe, who was surrounded by mourners and sympathizers when reporters visited her that Friday evening, said Mrs. Olaya was an aunt to the deceased as she (Mrs. Olaya) is the younger sister of the deceased’s father.
Contrary to Mrs. Olaya’s claim, Mrs. Akinyemi said her son left behind a child.
She looked forlorn on the mat she sat clutching a copy of the Holy Bible which has become her indispensable daily companion since the unfortunate incident happened.
Yet to come to the reality of the unfortunate and untimely death of his beloved son, Mrs. Akinyemi still believes that Modupe is still alive and would come back home in a short while.
First to speak was her daughter, Eniola who was the first person to counter the claim of Mrs. Olaya that she was Modupe’s mother.
Eniola said Mrs. Olaya was an aunt to the deceased and not his mother as the whole world was made to believe when the dust about circumstances surrounding his death was yet to settle.
The half-sister of the deceased said she was yet to see the corpse of Modupe since the unfortunate incident occurred.
She believed that the controversial claim of Mrs. Olaya was unfortunate and that her half-brother did not deserve to be so treated even in death.
The distraught mother, Mrs. Akinyemi, also queried the claim in government quarters that Ogundele, the lawmaker representing Efon Constituency, was responsible for the killing of her son.
Exonerating Ogundele of complicity in the killing of her son, Mrs. Akinyemi said she had accepted fate and leave justice to God to find the real killer of Modupe.
•Mrs Akinyemi (Real mother)
Mrs. Akinyemi explained that she gave birth to the deceased from her marriage to her first husband (Mr. Olaya) who, according to her, was killed in the violence that rocked the 1983 general elections before her last marriage to her current husband.
She explained that the state government had not sent a message to her on the killing of her son whom she said left behind a wife and one kid.
Mrs. Akinyemi said Mrs. Olaya did not obtain the permission of the family before going to the Government House to claim that she is the mother of the deceased saying she was embarrassed to hear the news from neighbours and family members who watched the ‘drama’ on the state television.
Mrs. Akinyemi said: “I don’t know who killed my son. I don’t know; I can’t say. They were saying it was one lawmaker that killed my son, how can that be?
“I last saw him (Modupe) two days before his death. He was born in May 1982 as the fourth child. His colleagues said he was among those who were protesting.
“The woman that went to the Government House was just his aunt. I’m his true mother. She (Mrs. Olaya) went there without the knowledge of the family.”
“I was shocked when the woman said she had gone to claim she was the mother. She didn’t bring anything to me, but I know she is a member of the PDP.
“I have not seen his corpse since then. My son is irreplaceable. There is nothing I can do as a poor widow but I have left vengeance for God.”
When asked about what her late son did for a living, Mrs. Olaya revealed that Modupe operated a business at Ojuelegba in Lagos and also served as a commercial driver.
She said: “He used to sell goods at Ojuelegba in Lagos and was also a driver. When he came to Efon, he rented a room at Alabukun. He was born in 1982 and he was the fourth child.
“I hear that he was among the protesters, I asked the people to know whether he was with them.
“The woman that went to the Government House is his aunt and not his mother, I am his mother, I am the one that gave birth to him.
“We never sent her (Mrs. Olaya) to go there, I and other members of the family were not aware that she went there.
“She has not come since yesterday (Thursday) and she has not delivered any message to me after her appearance at the Government House.
“She did not tell me, the mother, when she was invited to come to the Government House. She is one of the PDP women leaders in Efon here.
“The state government has not sent any message to me, the mother, about the killing of my son if it ever happened.
“He left behind a wife and a son, if they give me money now, it cannot raise my son back to life.
“He didn’t use to be involved in political activities before but later he began to follow them. His father died in 1983″.
As the corpse still lies in the mortuary, the dust raised by the false maternity claim of Mrs. Olaya is casting a thick pall of controversial on the death of the young man.
Only God knows whether the relationship between Mrs. Olaya and the rest of the family will remain the same.
All was tense yesterday in Ekiti State ahead of today’s Supreme Court judgment in the suit filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the election of Governor Ayo Fayose.
The legal dispute is on the June 21, 2014 governorship election, which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Fayose, who ran on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), winner.
The electoral agency credited Fayose with 203,090 votes. The APC candidate, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, scored 120,433 votes.
Fayemi conceded defeat to Fayose but his party (APC) went to court, complaining of intimidation of its members and militarisation of the poll. Besides, the APC questioned Fayose’s qualification for the election.
Fayose’s election was affirmed by the Election Petition Tribunal led by Justice Mohammed Sirajo, on December 19, last year.
The APC proceeded to the Court of Appeal but lost again as an Appeal Panel chaired by Justice Abdu Aboki on February 16 upheld Fayose’s election.
Although the APC lost at the Appeal Court, the court found merit in the party’s claim that the military was used to intimidate its leaders and members before and during the election.
The court ruled that it is illegal to deploy the military for election duties.
Undeterred by its loss in the Appeal Court, the APC went to the apex court, to challenge Fayose’s victory.
Fayose, in a broadcast, urged residents to maintain the peace.
He expressed appreciation to the people for voting for his party at last Saturday’s House of Assembly polls.
Fayose said the victory had confirmed that the PDP’s winning streak, which started with last year’s governorship poll, was not a fluke and that he is not holding a stolen mandate as alleged by his opponents.
The governor expressed confidence that he would overcome his travails, adding that the plot to remove him will not succeed.
Some residents have been reacting to the impending judgment.
A State Local Government Service Commission official said what was paramount to him is the peaceful coexistence of residents.
A farmer, Mr. Sunday Adelowo, said he did not believe that people should nurse anxiety over the judgment since the Tribunal and the Appeal Court had earlier ruled in Fayose’s favour.
Policemen remained on guard yesterday at various places in Ado-Ekiti, the state capital where they have been since the outbreak of the impeachment crisis last week.
The APC in Ekiti State has raised the alarm over alleged plans by members of the PDP to attack its members and supporters on Tuesday if the Supreme Court judgment threatens Fayose ‘s position.
APC Publicity Secretary, Taiwo Olatubosun said in a statement that the party had uncovered plans to burn down houses of APC leaders and harm members and supporters if the judgment is not favourable to the governor.
The APC said: “Since the Ekitigate tape emerged, the PDP has become more desperate in its actions over where the pendulum will swing in the impending judgment.
“They have mapped out elaborate strategies to attack our members if the judgment does not favour the governor.
“In Ikere-Ekiti, for instance, they have threatened to burn down the homes of two members of the House of Assembly in Ikere Local Government, Yomi Daramola and Clement Adu Sunday.
“One Ejila and Ibrahim are said to be the arrowheads of the planned attacks.
“Just today (Monday), PDP members were attacking the street sweepers in Ikere-Ekiti, accusing them of not voting for PDP in the weekend election while in Ado-Ekiti, the home of APC candidate for last weekend’s House of Assembly election, Sola Olofin, was attacked.
“They are planning to attack the home of another Assembly candidate, Sola Fatoba. These attacks are carryover of the violence during Saturday’s State Assembly election, marred by ballot snatching and violence.
“We call on the security agencies to provide adequate security for APC members while those causing crisis in the state should be arrested.”
Also yesterday, there were speculations of “a desperate attempt to influence the verdict”.
Two key government officials are said to be behind the moves to influence the court’s verdict.
A source spoke of how the officials had been pushing to “reach out” to the Supreme Court Justices.
The officials reportedly visited a senior Judiciary figure, seeking his go-ahead for a meeting with some of the Justices – a move which a source said would be tuned down to protect the court’s integrity.
The officials, said another source, planned to tell the Justices that some of them would be dismissed on corruption grounds, when the new government assumes office next month.
But Fayose is said to be upeat, telling his supporters that he had been assured of a favourable verdict.
One of the officials is said to be contacting prominent Yoruba leaders to help stem the growing opposition towards Fayose in the Southwest, especially in the event that the judgment goes in his favour. His reasons is that Fayose fought Jonathan’s cause.
A General was contacted directly by Fayose for his assistance, but his plea met with brick wall, as the respected General turned him down.
Fayose reportedly sent emissaries to the National leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, saying he plan to defect to the APC if he could assist him scale the Supreme Court hurdle.
The thinking, it was learnt, is that a rift exists between Fayemi and Asiwaju Tinubu.
Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose ran the 19 All Progressives Congress (APC) members of the House of Assembly out of town on assumption of office last October. Since then, he has been preventing them from returning to perform their legislative duties. But last week, the 19 ‘exiled’ lawmakers returned and served Fayose an impeachment notice. They wrote the Chief Judge to raise a panel to probe their allegations against Fayose, who is more comfortable doing business with the minority seven People Democratic Party (PDP) lawmakers. Are the governor’s days numbered? PRECIOUS IGBONWELUNDU asks.
What Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose seems to fear most eventually happened last week. The 19 All Progressives Congress (APC) members of the House of Assembly that he ran out of town on assuming office last October beat all odds to serve him an impeachment notice. The impeachment process opens another front in the battle between the lawmakers and Fayose, who is more comfortable dealing with the minority seven legislators.
Since his return as governor, Fayose, who was impeached by the then House in 2006, has been working with the seven lawmakers who are members of his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). With Fayose’s tacit support, the minority lawmakers approved some commissioners for him and the state’s 2015 budget.
Fayose and his lawmakers have been carrying on despite warnings from the majority 19 legislators that what they are doing is wrong. Is this a replay of the 2006 impeachment of Fayose for gross misconduct?
Following Fayose emergence as governor last year, the APC challenged his victory at the Election Petitions Tribunal, claiming that he is ineligible to contest having been impeached in 2006.
Thugs disrupted proceedings, leading to the death of one person; many others were injured. Worried by the development, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) shut the courts in the state and the Tribunal was moved to Abuja.
The crisis deepened when the Speaker, Dr. Adewale Omirin, was ‘impeached’ by the seven PDP lawmakers. Fayose is alleged to have instigated Omirin’s removal.
Armed policemen were positioned outside the Assembly’s premises last November 18 to prevent the APC lawmakers from entering. Omirin’s aides were withdrawn. Electricity supply to his lodge was disconnected. Allowances meant for his office were stopped.
Many faulted the minority lawmakers’ action. Reason: Section 92(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution states that a Speaker can only be impeached by at least two-third majority of the House.
With Omirin impeached and all 19 APC lawmakers allegedly chased out of the state by thugs, legislative business including the confirmation of key executive council members and approval of major financial decisions were taken by the pro-Fayose seven, led by Dele Olugbemi, who claimed that the APC lawmakers had deliberately absconded from duty.
The case against Fayose
In a letter titled: ‘‘Re: Notice of Allegations of Gross Misconduct’’, the lawmakers listed eight impeachable allegations against the governor and demanded a reply in line with Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution.
The governor’s alleged offences include invasion of the House of Assembly with thugs and miscreants; instigating unconstitutional takeover of the House by seven legislators to sit in contravention of Section 96(2) of the Constitution; prevention of the 19 APC legislative members from performing legislative duties with the use of security agents and armed thugs and sponsoring an unlawful impeachment process in the house.
Other allegations are spending Ekiti State funds without the requisite constitutional approval in contravention of the constitution; running the government of the state without a legally constituted Executive Council in contravention of Section 192(2) of the Constituion; operating an illegal 2014 Budget as well as sponsoring and instigating illegal sitting of the House in contravention of Section 96(1) of the Constitution.
However, Fayose, who claimed he has not been served any impeachment notice, but only read it online, described the lawmakers as jesters for drafting the said notice outside the Hallowed Chamber. He reminded the lawmakers that there was a pending case in court instituted by Omirin, challenging his removal and asked them to await the outcome of the suit.
He boasted that, despite being in the majority, the lawmakers can not impeach him because he had done nothing wrong. He accused Omirin of having an ulterior motive of becoming Acting Governor, thereby returning the state to APC.
Since then, the state has not known peace. On April 7, at least one person was reportedly killed as the protest to stop Fayose’s impeachment raged on.
Procedures for impeaching
a governor
According to Section 188 of the Constitution, a governor or his deputy shall be removed from office whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly, alleging gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, with detailed and specific particulars are availed the Speaker.
Upon receipt of the notice, the Speaker is expected to, within seven days, cause a copy to be served on the Governor and on each member of the House of Assembly, as well as ensure that the governor’s response to the impeachment notice is also served on the legislators individually.
‘‘(3) Within 14 days of the presentation of the notice to the speaker of the House of Assembly (whether or not any statement was made by the holder of the office in reply to the allegation contained in the notice, the House of Assembly shall resolve by motion, without any debate whether or not the allegation shall be investigated.
‘‘(4) A motion of the House of Assembly that the allegation be investigated shall not be declared as having been passed unless it is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of the House of Assembly;
“(5) Within seven days of the passing of a motion under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Chief judge of the State shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly, appoint a Panel of seven persons, who in his opinion are of unquestionable integrity, not being members of any public service, legislative house or political party, to investigate the allegation as provided in this section.
‘‘(6) The holder of an office whose conduct is being investigated under this section shall have the right to defend himself in person or be represented before the panel by a legal practitioner of his own choice;
“(7) A panel appointed under this section shall – (a) have such powers and exercise its functions in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly; and (b) within three months of its appointment, report its findings to the House of Assembly.
‘‘(8) Where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter;
“(9) Where the report of the Panel is that the allegation against the holder of the office has been proved, then within fourteen days of the receipt of the report, the house of Assembly shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of the House of Assembly supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the report of the Panel is adopted, then the holder of the office shall stand removed from office as from the date of the adoption of the report.
‘‘(10) No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court;
“(11) In this section – “gross misconduct” means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion in the House of Assembly to gross misconduct.’’
Although the APC lawmakers have more than the stipulated one-third majority to institute an impeachment notice, many have wondered if it would be possible to impeach Fayose and his deputy, giving that the state House of Assembly currently has two factional speakers – Omirin and Olugbemi.
Analysts have also expressed concerns that the impeachment may be stalled by the Chief Judge of the State, Justice Ayodeji Daramola, who the lawmakers allegedly requested to constitute a seven-man probe panel to investigate the allegation of gross misconduct, because of pending cases in various courts, even though the lawmakers have applied to withdraw the suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos.
The 19 lawmakers are also racing against time. With the PDP reportedly winning majority of the seats in the state Assembly in last Saturday’s election, the APC lawmakers have only until May 29 to impeach Fayose, for it will be difficult to do so by a House dominated by PDP lawmakers.
It also appears that the security agencies have not granted Omirin and the 19 lawmakers maximum protection to enable them perform their duties in the House. The presidency, so far, has been silent on the crisis and observers feel every effort is being made to prevent Fayose’s impeachment until at least, May 29.
Lawyers react
Can the 19 lawmakers “impeach” Fayose outside the hollowed chambers to which access has been blocked? Can they legally sit anywhere and take a decision? Lawyers believe that the APC lawmakers have so far acted in accordance with the law. They argued that impeachment notice can be drafted anywhere, but must be signed by at least one-third of the members (one-third of 26 lawmakers in this case).
•Adekoya
Constitutional lawyer, Funke Adekoya (SAN) noted that in terms of the venue and number of members, the notice of impeachment on Fayose was valid.
She, however, argued that the notice must be sent to the Speaker, who will serve on the Governor to avoid being invalidated when challenged in court.
On the way out, she said the governor must be duly served with the impeachment notice.
Like Adekoya, renowned lawyer Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN) said the constitution is silent as to the location where an impeachment notice can be drafted.
He said: ‘“What is important is where the deliberation to impeach is taken. It can be done outside the Hallowed Chamber and so, the venue is valid.
‘‘Now that the governor has refused to respond, the next stage is what the legislators have done by writing the CJ for a panel. After the panel has finished its investigation, it will send its findings to the Assembly, which must be received in the Hallowed Chamber after which the deliberation for impeachment will commence there.
‘‘The charges against Fayose are the grossest of misconducts I have ever seen. A typical example is the governor using seven members of the state Assembly to constitute majority against 19 members. That alone is a rip on the constitution.
‘‘Another gross misconduct is driving the 19 members out of the state by use of force and violence, as well as using six lawmakers to approve sensitive cabinet positions like Attorney-General, Accountant-General and Commissioner for Finance.
‘‘The governor’s misconduct cries to high heavens and I am happy that the lawmakers have summoned the courage. Since Fayose emerged as governor, has he run the state in accordance with the constitution? No!
‘‘Way forward is for the House to complete the process. If the legislature does not do it well, the judiciary will play its role.
“Nigerians are witnesses to the use of thugs to molest and drive away legislators from their chambers; humiliation of judges, who were beaten up by thugs of Fayose.
‘‘He made the state unsafe for the legislators and cannot truthfully claim they absconded from duty.’’
•Falana
Responding, Femi Falana (SAN) explained that what was required to serve an impeachment notice was one-third of the members of the assembly and the APC lawmakers are more than one-third.
“Once the governor receives the notice, it has to be taken seriously because impeachment is a serious matter in the Constitution. That is why I am advising the governor to take this matter very seriously. He should seek legal advice on this matter,” he said.
Falana said in a democratic system of government, the majority would have its way while the minority would have its say.
“Section 96 (1) says the quorum of a House of Assembly shall be one-third of all the members of the House. In the case of Ekiti, the very least that can sit is eight members.
“Section 188 says that whenever a notice of any allegation in writing is signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly and is presented to the Speaker that is known to law, the Speaker shall, within seven days of the receipt, cause a copy to be served on the governor or the deputy governor.
“That is enough to put the engine in motion for the impeachment of a governor. The constitution does not say that the letter must be signed in the House.
“And from the look of things, that constitutional provision has been met. I do hope that the governor will take this notice very seriously, and react under the law,” Falana said.
All eyes are also on the Chief Judge to see the next step he takes.
Ahead of the impending judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the Ekiti Elections tomorrow there are reported desperate moves to subvert the decision of the court.
It was learnt that two top federal government officials have been making efforts to influence the Supreme Court Justices responsible for adjudicating on the Ekiti Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.
The case which has gone through the lower Tribunal and the Appeal Court is looking at allegations of eligibility and perjury by Governor Ayodele Fayose and the illegal use of the military to truncate the June 21 elections in the state.
It was gathered that the government officials visited a top judicial officer indicated is said to be disposed to helping with the matter.
It is however not certain if the Supreme Court Justices promised to accede to his request,.
The government officials are reportedly asking for an outright dismissal of most of the Justices of the Supreme Court on corruption grounds, when the new government assumes office next month.
Fayose was overheard in Ado Ekiti on Monday, reassuring his supporters that the needful had been done with the Justices and that he had been assured that the judgment would go in his favour.
Meanwhile, prominent Yoruba leaders are been contacted to help stem the growing opposition towards Fayose in the South West zone, especially in the event that the ruling goes in his favour having supporting Jonathan’s cause.
A retired General was contacted directly by Fayose for his assistance, but his plea met with brick wall, as the respected General turned him down.
With a perceived belief that there is a rift between the former governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi and the National leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Fayose sent emissaries to him that he is prepared to defect to the APC if he could assist him scale the supreme court hurdle.
We also gathered authoritatively at the weekend that the Justices and the judiciary are of the opinion that Fayose is not deserving of the seat, especially given the treatment he gave the judiciary in the build up to his inauguration as governor.
Legal experts have also canvassed that it would be a travesty of justice if Fayose is allowed to profit from the judiciary, which he has succeeded in desecrating severally.
Our source noted that the judiciary may find a very good reason to nail him, with eligibility, as a major ground for election nullification, regardless of whether or not he won the June 21 election. This is especially so because he would have been deemed not to have qualified to run for the office in the first instance.
The same desperation by bigwigs of the PDP was displayed in Lagos when the President virtually relocated to the Southwest in the build up to the Presidential and governorship polls.
Having lost many governorship seats in the just concluded April 11 polls, the PDP chieftains are of the view that they must do all they could to retain Ekiti, at least through the judiciary.
In the continuing saga of Governor Ayo Fayose’s impeachment, it is hard to tell who enjoys the most support: the governor, House of Assembly Speaker Adewale Omirin, or the constitution. Mr Fayose was last week served impeachment notice by 19 members of the House of Assembly led by Dr Omirin. The governor has done his best to evade direct service, and has instead tried to mobilise public sympathy. He argues that the 19 lawmakers, all members of the All Progressives Congress (APC), were attempting to use the tool of impeachment to secure what they lost through the ballot box.
Does the governor have the people’s support? There is no doubt that his supporters, most of whom have been publicly identified as trade union members, artisans, and office holders, are very vocal and troublesome and have loudly proclaimed their support for the governor and bitterness against the 19 lawmakers and the APC. These supporters have taken to the street and are constantly in the news, presenting a facade of huge and undeniable support for the paranoid Mr Fayose. There is, however, no doubt that over the months, as the governor displayed greater imbecility, the angry crowd of supporters, though still vociferous and implacable, had thinned out.
Dr Omirin also commands a huge and perhaps discrete following, first from a majority of lawmakers, and second from those pained by the precipitous decline of public morals and standards in this state of great learning. The Speaker’s educated supporters select and calibrate their responses, preferring the rule of law and due process. They naturally face the dilemma of seeming to be either docile in the face of Mr Fayose’s monstrous behaviour, or are in reality not too bothered whichever way the pendulum would swing.
The third force in the saga is of course the constitution, which at the moment seems pristinely alone and isolated. No matter what support both Mr Fayose and Dr Omirin get from their partisans, the constitution is at the heart of the quarrel and controversy, and will probably be the deciding factor. Who between the governor and the Speaker has acted constitutionally? And what does the constitution say about the impeachment? In the view of Femi Falana, a lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), the impeachment notice served by the 19 lawmakers is in order and has precedence. The notice, anchored on eight constitutional breaches against the governor, appeared to have been inspired by the continuing buffoonery of the governor, including dealing with seven lawmakers as the legal and properly constituted House of Assembly under the leadership of the usurper, Dele Olugbemi.
It does not, however, appear that too many people are paying attention to what the constitution says. Politics predominates, and decisions and actions are determined by whom the partisans support. While Ekiti and Nigerians wait to see whether the Chief Judge would set up an investigative panel as directed by the House of Assembly under Speaker Omirin, some lawyers cite a judgement of the Supreme Court, referenced in the case of the impeachment of former Oyo State governor, Rashidi Ladoja, indicating that impeachment notice could not be valid except it proceeded from a sitting in the legislative chamber. But what if the lawmakers were barred from the legislative chamber by violent groups, such as clearly happened in Ekiti last week?
It is not certain how the impeachment matter would be resolved. But if the farcical performance of Mr Olugbemi, leader of the Group of Seven who pretends to be the Speaker, is anything to go by, Ekiti is in trouble. Mr Olugbemi speaks very bad English, could hardly read his own prepared statement disputing Dr Omirin’s impeachment notice, his brief remarks were redolent with so many shibboleths, and he obviously knew little law and legislative practices. It was thus puzzling to see the governor embrace such appalling farce rather than concoct his own farce for which he is eminently gifted.
The Ekiti State All Progressives Congress (APC) Elders Forum has declared that there is no escape route for Ekiti State Governor Ayo Fayose in the impeachment process launched by 19 members of the House of Assembly.
The body said Fayose has serially breached the Constitution, desecrated the esteemed office he occupies and should be ready to face the consequences of his action.
It also congratulated the President-elect, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, on his victory at the March 28 presidential poll saying Nigerians are expecting a honest, purposeful and growth-oriented leadership, diversification of the economy and improvement of the economy from the APC-led Federal Government.
The Publicity Secretary of Ekiti APC Elders Forum, Dr. Bayo Orire, who made the position of the group known on Friday also warned the military and the police against being used to hinder the lawmakers from carrying out their constitutional functions.
Condemning the military for turning back the 19 APC lawmakers from entering Ado-Ekiti, the state capital on Tuesday, Orire said the party’s elder body was concerned about an alleged open partisanship of officers and men of the Nigerian Army on the matter.
He also said the Police and the Army should not be watching helplessly for hoodlums to seize the whole state and interfere with the constitutional duties of the Assembly members.
Dr. Orire explained that the lawmakers should not be blamed for signing and forwarding an impeachment notice against Fayose saying a responsible House of Assembly was not expected to look the other way when the chief executive was overstepping his bounds.
According to him, Fayose has violated the oath he swore to defend the Constitution and not do anything to infringe on the rule of law urging the people of the state not to see the action of the lawmakers as an attack on the governor but to save the state from impunity and sliding into an “irredeemable dictatorship.”
The APC elders’ spokesman maintained that whatever constitutional action taken by the nineteen lawmakers remain legitimate, legal and binding since they have met and surpassed the two-third majority needed to remove an erring governor.
He said: “The violence that paralyzed all activities on Tuesday was an incited, sponsored and planned reaction. The gruesome sign of a weak leader who only believes in the brawn and sheer brute force, a man of unmatched deceptive ploy.
“No matter what they do in form of killing, maiming, burning of cars, intimidation and harassment, the law must take its course and the truth must prevail.
“The crux of the impeachment saga will emerge very soon, we all here when he emerged by sheer brute force and brigandage against all contending PDP aspirants.
“It was he that filled his own form on falsehood, he contested against the ten-year impeachment limit period. The whole world heard how he harassed judges in court premises and topped it all by forcing out 19 legislators and installed seven to rule.
“All other impeachable offences were committed by him so he would face the wrath of the law no matter what happens. Majority of the complaints against him are basic, fundamental and constitutional.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ekiti State has reacted to the ruling of the Federal High Court rejecting Governor Ayodele Fayose’s request to stop the House of Assembly from going ahead with the impeachment proceedings against him, saying it is laughable that the governor who once desecrated the judiciary by leading thugs to beat up judges and tear court records in the Chief Judge’s office is now approaching the same institution to protect him from his illegal acts.
It also expressed surprise that the governor could approach a Federal High Court in Abuja for protection over a matter that happened in Ekiti after lampooning APC for approaching same court in Jos Division while seeking protection from the governor’s harassment and attacks.
It added that the governor contradicted himself by challenging the legality of his impeachment proceedings when he had earlier claimed that he was not aware of any impeachment move by the lawmakers.
A statement by Publicity Secretary, Taiwo Olatubosun said the governor was confused on how to handle his cases in court, having desecrated Ekiti State judiciary and instigating the state judiciary workers to refuse resumption of duties.
“Fayose didn’t allow Ekiti courts to function and he declared the State Chairman of the APC, Chief Olajide Awe, wanted over a phantom murder charge, Chief Awe obtained an injunction against arrest from a Federal High Court in Jos, which the governor referred to as a ‘black market injunction’. He has now ran to Abuja to get an injunction to restrain the 19 lawmakers from impeaching him but the court in its wisdom has turned this request down,” the APC spokesman noted.
He expressed delight at the court ruling, saying the gesture was a warning to the governor and his like that the rule of law had come to stay in Nigeria.
“Bye bye to impunity and flagrant trampling on the nation’s constitution. The governor should get set for his impeachment and we advise him to assemble his legal representatives. The Assembly is prepared to give him a fair hearing in the matter and he should be assured that he has nothing to fear.
“Mr. Fayose must respond to the impeachment notice from the House of Assembly and stop looking for an easy way out,” the Olatubosun added, stressing that the emergence of General Buhari as the President-elect marked the end of impunity in the country.
