The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday adjourned further proceedings in the case filed by the embattled Deputy Governor of Ondo State, Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, till October 16 for a ruling on some applications to decide whether to continue sitting on the case or not.
This followed the application of Aiyedatiwa’s counsel, which was predicated on two grounds: to encourage the Reconciliation Committee set up by the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and to allow the Ondo State House of Assembly enough time to pursue its petition to the National Judicial Council against the judge.
At the resumed hearing of the matter, he informed the court that the National Chairman of the APC set up a Reconciliation Committee on October 6, 2023, to mediate the dispute between some of the parties to the suit.
The continuation of court proceedings will antagonise the settlement efforts, as the parties will not be willing to let go of their rigid positions.
The counsel further informed the court that the House of Assembly wrote a petition to the National Judicial Council on October 3, 2023, making very disparaging and uncomplimentary comments against the presiding judge.
He stated that the effect of the petition to the NJC is that the House of Assembly has no confidence in the presiding judge.
The same assembly cannot simultaneously argue any application before the same judge. Hence, it would be good to await the action of the NJC on the said petition.
He also applied that the petition should be served on all parties so that they can respond to it while deprecating the unguarded utterances and actions of the Assembly.
Responding, counsel to the Ondo State Governor and the Chief Judge of Ondo State informed the court that they were not parties to the settlement moves.
They would thus prefer the court to go ahead with the case and first determine the issue of its jurisdiction.
On its part, Counsel to the House of Assembly confirmed that a petition was written to the NJC but disagreed with the contents of the said petition as it seeks to undermine the integrity of the court.
He said he had advised the Assembly to withdraw the petition, and a letter of withdrawal accompanied by an affidavit was submitted to the NJC on October 6, 2023.
He apologised to the court for the misconduct of his clients and gave an undertaking that his clients would forthwith show the utmost respect to the authority of the court.
In response, Aiyedatiwa’s counsel informed the court that since there is an admission of the petition to the NJC, the court should direct that the petition and the letter of withdrawal be sent to the court and all the parties.
He emphasised that it is a misconception to state that the court has no jurisdiction over the case, as, under the Constitution, only the Federal High Court can exercise jurisdiction concerning declarations against agencies of the federal government, in this case, the Inspector-General of Police and the Department of State Security.
He stated that parties who seek to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court should follow due process by filing the necessary applications.
When the plaintiff is served with such applications, he will respond to them appropriately.
Justice Emeka Nwite, after listening to the submissions of counsel, advised the lawyers and the Nigerian Bar Association to do their best to protect the sanctity of the legal profession and avoid temptations from politicians to disparage the judiciary.
He mentioned that if any party is dissatisfied with any court decision, they should follow the appropriate channels laid down for a remedy.
The judge then adjourned the case to October 16 for a ruling on the submissions made and to hear pending applications, if necessary.
It will be recalled that on September 26, 2023, the court made orders of injunction restraining the House of Assembly of Ondo State, the Chief Judge of Ondo State, and the Governor of Ondo, along with other defendants in the case, from taking steps that will lead to the impeachment of the Deputy Governor.
The court made the order last until the hearing of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction, which is still pending before the court.
