| Appeal Court voids
Ladoja’s impeachment
•Akala appeals
From AKEEB ALARAPE, Ibadan
Thursday,
November 2, 2006
 |
•Battery
of journalists at the court
Photo: DADA OSASONA |
| |
After over 10 months of legal battle, victory eventually
came the way of the erstwhile Governor of Oyo, Senator Rasidi
Ladoja, as the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, voided his
impeachment, describing it “as unconstitutional, null
and void and of no effect whatsoever.” The court ruled
that all the processes leading to the impeachment of Ladoja
were contraventions of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by the five-member constitutional
panel led by Justice James Ogenyi Ogebe, the court also vacated
the 23 December, 2005 ruling of Justice John Olagoke Ige,
which declined jurisdiction in entertaining the case instituted
by the then Speaker and Deputy-Speaker of the state House
of Assembly, Hons. Adeolu Adeleke and Dauda Titilola, which
challenged the processes of Ladoja’s impeachment, pointing
out that the judge erred in refusing to ensure that the House
complied with provisions of the constitution.
But in a swift reaction, Special Adviser to Governor Adebayo
Alao-Akala, on Communication and Strategy, Mr. Diran Odeyemi,
said that the ruling has nothing to do with his boss as there
was nowhere his name was mentioned in the ruling. He also
pointed out that there was room for appeal in the judgment.
But at Ladoja’s residence located at Ondo Street, Bodija
Estate, it was jubilation galore as his supporters engaged
in dancing and singing, while traders at the popular Ogunpa
market also went wild jubilating as the ruling of the court
swept through the city.
Amidst tight security, the lead judge, Ogebe, accompanied
by Justices Kumai Akaahs, Christopher Chukwuma-Eneh, Clara
Ogunbiyi and Ja'afaru Mikailu, pointed out that the trial
court had “serious questions to consider before hastily
throwing out the suit” brought by the two lawmakers
to challenge the controversial impeachment, as they constituted
the leadership of the House as at the time of the impeachment.
Acting under Section 16 of the Appeal Court Act, the court
assumed the jurisdiction of the lower court based on the prayer
of the appellants and faulted the sitting of the 18 pro-impeachment
lawmakers outside the chambers of the House, to deliberate
on a sensitive issue like the impeachment of a sitting governor.
While delivering his ruling, Ogebe pointed out that the court
has “a duty to inquire whether a factional meeting of
18 members constituted the required two-third majority of
all members.”
“The court also had to consider whether impeachment
proceedings in which the Speaker of the House of Assembly
is excluded from his leading role as provided for in the Section
188 of the Constitution can amount to proper proceedings of
impeachment”, he added.
On whether the plaintiffs/appellants have locus standi to
institute a legal action against the impeachment, Ogebe ruled
that the constitution itself “gave prominent role to
the Speaker of the House in the matter of the impeachment
of a governor or a deputy governor”, adding that there
was evidence before the court that either the Speaker or his
deputy was suspended or vacated their office before or during
the impeachment.
“It is my view that no factional meeting of any members
of a state House of Assembly can amount to a constitutional
meeting of the whole House of Assembly as envisaged and provided
for in the constitution. There was no counter-affidavit before
the lower court to prove that any member of the House of Assembly
of Oyo State was suspended or that the
plaintiffs/appellants were removed as Speaker and Deputy Speaker
in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
“It follows therefore, that all the steps taken by the
faction of the defendants/respondents purporting to initiate
impeachment of Senator Ladoja as Governor of Oyo State were
not actions of the Oyo State House of Assembly under Section
188 of the 1999 constitution.
“Consequently, I allow the appeals of the plaintiffs/appellants
and the interested/party appellant and set aside the ruling
of the trial court declining jurisdiction”, Ogebe ruled,
while declaring Ladoja’s impeachment through the activities
of the 18 lawmakers as a contravention of Section 188 of the
constitution and “null, void and of no effect whatsoever”.
The remaining four judges unanimously aligned themselves with
the lead ruling, pointing out that the nation’s nascent
democracy could only survive on “the rule of law and
not rule of the jungle”.
Reacting to the judgment, counsel representing the plaintiffs/appellants,
Barrister Adebayo Shittu, who stood for Chief Wole Olanipekun
(SAN) and others described the judgment as “liberation
not only to the people of Oyo State but to people in all states
of the Federation where such illegalities are taking place”.
But lawyers to the plaintiffs/respondents stated that law
itself was dynamic and would therefore employ the dynamism
of the law to fight their cause. Minutes later, they circulated
copies of notice of appeal to newsmen within the court premises.
In the notice of appeal, they argued that the Court of Appeal
“erred in law, acted without jurisdiction and committed
a serious constitutional breach of the appellants’ rights
to fair hearing when it pronounced on the merit of the plaintiffs’
suit and granted the reliefs”.
|
