Court To Hear Shaibu’s Suit Against Assembly, Others April 19

 

A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed a date to hear the lawsuit brought forth by Philip Shaibu, the recently impeached Deputy Governor of Edo State.

 

The court scheduled April 19 as hearing date.

 

The legal challenge targets the state’s house of assembly among other parties involved in his impeachment process.

 

Justice Inyang Ekwo presided over the preliminary discussions on Friday when Alex Ejesieme, SAN, along with other defense attorneys, appeared to request a hearing date.

 

Although the case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/405/24, was not initially on the day’s cause list, the defense team’s proactive approach led them to court to ensure their matter was attended to.

 

The hearing date comes after a slight delay caused by a public holiday which led to the court being closed on the originally scheduled date.

 

Addressing the court, one of the defense lawyers noted their presence was in compliance with previous court instructions, stating, “So in obedience to court, we came today.”

 

However, Justice Ekwo clarified that he could not proceed with a case not currently listed in the court files, instructing the lawyers to coordinate with the court registrar to secure the next available date, which was then set for April 19.

 

The lawsuit by Shaibu follows his contentious impeachment, sparking debates on legal and political grounds in Edo State.

 

In the suit dated March 26 but filed March 27, Shaibu sued the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police; State Security Service (SSS) as 1st and 2nd respondents.

 

He also joined Hon. Justice S.A. Omonua (rtd.), the Chairman representing himself and members of the Panel of Seven Appointed by the 4th Defendant; the Chief Judge of Edo; and Prof. Theresa Akpoghome as 3rd to 5th respondents.

 

Shaibu, in the suit filed by O.A. Gbadamosi, SAN, also listed Mr President Aigbokhian; Mr Oghogho Ayodele Oviasu and the Edo State House of Assembly as 6th to 8th respondents respectively.

 

In the originating motion on notice, a declaration that the threat and failure of the 3rd to 8th respondents to give him a fair hearing in the impeachment proceedings commenced by the 8th respondent is illegal, unconstitutional, and a gross violation of his fundamental right to fair hearing, pursuant to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

 

“He sought a declaration that the failure of the 8th respondent (assembly) to serve the purported impeachment notice on him personally and on each member of the House of Assembly, in line with Section 188(2) of the 1999 Constitution is a violation of his right to fair hearing.

“He also sought a declaration that the inclusion of the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents as chairman and members of the seven-member Investigation panel to investigate allegations contained in a purported impeachment notice to the applicant is tainted by a reasonable likelihood of bias and will result in a violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing, guaranteed by virtue of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.

“He sought an order directing the respondents not to take any further steps in violating his fundamental right to fair hearing, guaranteed by virtue of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

“He also sought an order directing the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents to recuse themselves from sitting as Chairman and members of the 7-Man Investigating Panel appointed by the 3rd respondent, on account of the likelihood of bias on their part against him, among other reliefs.

“Giving seven grounds of argument, Shaibu averred that before now, he had never been confronted with any of such notice or allegations of misconduct or abuse of office or any allegations at all, whether as deputy governor or acting governor.

“He said he had not been served with any letter/notice as required by Section 188(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended and no privilege had been accorded him by the assembly to provide answers to any purported allegations to warrant a process targeted at his removal from office as deputy governor.

“The 3rd respondent via a letter dated 25th March, 2024 was appointed by the 4th respondent as the chairman of a panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations contained in a purported impeachment notice, which is yet to be personally served on the applicant.

“The 3rd respondent is a retired judicial officer and community leader from Esan North East Local Government Area of Edo Central Senatorial District, where there is strong clamour against the gubernatorial ambition of the applicant.

“The 3rd respondent appears to have been given the hatchet job of recommending the removal from office of the applicant, in order to weaken his political ambition of becoming governor of Edo State.

“The 4th respondent being a protégé of the 3rd respondent, appointed him as chairman of the Investigating Panel, when other persons he offered the same appointment rejected it, because it was a politically motivated job.”