Hope for democracy brightened in Nigeria as the illegally impeached governor of Oyo State, Rasheed Ladoja, was reinstated by a Federal Court. Sleek political hacker, Lamidi Adedibu, is  stunned, with the crushing of his set pieces through a declaratory judgement that must be enforced immediately.

Supporters of the impeached Governor Ladoja broke into wild jubilation as the Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan declared the impeachment process illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. Adedibu's thugs gathered, probably to block the execution of the court decision, while Adedibu declared the judgement will not be executed. Unpertubed, Ladoja has called on the police to reinstate him to his office.

Reinstating the governor, the presiding Judge James.O. Ogebe ruled that if the incumbent administration led by Christopher Alao-Akala goes to Supreme Court, it would not win stressing that the process of the impeachment of Governor Ladoja was absolutely faulty.


Among the eight faulty processes were: the sitting of the legislators in an hotel rather than the State House of Assembly to deliberate on the impeachment; sending the notice of impeachment through the newspapers; impeachment carried out by 18 rather than 22 legislators; unavailability of affidavit of suspension; the time-frame of the process; and the declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the High Court, thereby declaring the process null and void. Many lawyers hailed the ruling as a victory for democracy and a lesson to Nigerians in general.

According to Bayo Shittu, and Sanyaolu Akinyele, representing Governor Ladoja’s camp, Gov. Ladoja should be immediately reinstated as the constitutional and elected governor of Oyo state. Shittu said, “the judgement is a judgement of a Court of Appeal and it is a full constitutional court that has decided on it. It is not just a three-man panel, it is a panel of five which is a full court of Nigeria. “We thank God and the people of Oyo state. We thank God that at last we’ve had a nullification of the purported impeachment, and by implication, Governor Ladoja remains the Governor of Oyo State as from today till the 29th May 2007.

Ladoja claimed that the outcome of the nine-month old legal battle had vindicated him.

He said, ”All I have to say to the Inspector-General of Police, the Director-General of the SSS is to restore my security aides so that I can start work immediately. As you know, I am ready to work today. If they (security aides) are here today, I will be at my desk tomorrow.

”I want to say that it has been a very long, long, long route to justice. But it is worth it because once and for all, all the ambiguities on whether the court has the jurisdiction to look into matters of impeachment have been laid to rest; the issue of who is supposed to be Speaker is laid to rest.

“The issue of whether you can go and hold your meeting in a restaurant or a beer parlour and call it your own House of Assembly is also laid to rest. So, all these are for once laid to rest.”

He said although he had been used as guinea pig, the governor said the judgment would help the country in the future on how to determine the procedure guiding the removal of a governor.

Although, the governor commended the judiciary for the outcome of the case, he, however, cautioned the organ against being used to scuttle the nation‘s democracy.

He said his belief in the judiciary as the hope of the common man made him to leave the matter to the court.

He added, ”We opted to pursue our right through legitimate means and today, we are vindicated. We are vindicated in the sense that we saw that at the end of it, it pays to follow the rule of law. And that is why we feel we have to show our appreciation to the judiciary, even though, the judiciary itself needs some reforms.

While thanking other governors for what he called a show of solidarity, he, however, said they woke up a bit late in showing their support.

Ladoja also thanked the Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, Pa. Anthony Enahoro, his lawyers, Chief Wole Olanipekun, Mr. Femi Falana, Alhaji Yusuf Ali and other.

He also called on the people of Oyo State to go about their duties in a lawful manner.

At the briefing were members of the State House of Assembly loyal to Ladoja, who were led by the Speaker, Mr. Adeolu Adeleke.

As at press time on Wednesday, there were indications that the counsel to Ladoja had written the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Sunday Ehindero, to enforce the judgment of the court.

A source in Ibadan said, “We got a declarative judgment from the Court of Appeal. By implications Akala cannot ask for a stay of execution of the judgment.

“As I am talking to you, a team has been sent to Abuja to serve a copy of the judgment on the IGP for enforcement.

“Once the IGP receives a copy of the judgment, he is to ensure the immediate reinstatement of Ladoja into office.

When contacted, a counsel to Ladoja, Mr. Niyi Akintola (SAN), said, “The implication of the judgment is that you cannot ask for a stay of execution.

“We are contemplating taking a copy of the judgment to the IGP. We are working on it.”

Some legal experts including a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and professor of law, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, and a judge, had stated that since a declaratory judgment could not be stayed under the law, the embattled Governor of Oyo State, Adebayo Alao-Akala, could not legally apply for a stay of execution.

A stay of execution of court judgment is a legal term referring to temporary suspension of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal on that judgment.

Osipitan said, “Although I have not seen the judgment as of this moment to know whether it is declaratory, but I don’t think an aggrieved person could stay a declaratory judgment, it is not the legal practice.

Also a judge who spoke under condition of anonymity said, “A declaratory judgment could not be stayed simply because it is not a specific order, there is nothing to stay.

“When a judgment is declaratory, further steps have to be taken before it becomes enforceable order, but in any event, the order cannot be stayed.”

Another lawyer, Mr. Bamidele Aturu also said, “It is trite that a declaratory judgment of court cannot be stayed. You can only apply to stay a specific order or mandatory injunction, you cannot stay a declaratory judgment.

“That makes the things worse for Alao-Akala’s group,” Aturu said.

Earlier the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, on Wednesday nullified the removal of Alhaji Rashidi Ladoja as the Governor of Oyo State by the state House of Assembly.

The five justices of the court, in a unanimous judgment, said the impeachment proceedings by 18 out of the 32 members of the Assembly were illegal and unconstitutional.

The panel members were Justices James O. Ogebe (presiding); Kumai Akaahs, Christopher Chukwuma-Eneh; Clara Ogunbiyi and Ja’faru Mika’ilu.

Ladoja was removed from office on January 12, 2006 by the 18 lawmakers without meeting the constitutional requirement of two-thirds of members of the Assembly.

But the Speaker of the Assembly, Mr. Adeolu Adeleke, and his deputy, Mr. Titilola Dauda, had challenged the process which led to the removal of the governor at the Oyo State High Court, Ibadan.

But Justice J. Ige of the High Court declined jurisdiction on the matter and dismissed the originating summons.

Ige had on December 28, 2005 invoked sub-section 10 of Section 188 of the constitution, which ousted the jurisdiction of the court in legislative matters, without considering provisions of the preceding sub-sections 1-9.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Adeleke and his deputy approached the appellate court for the proper interpretation of Section 188 of the constitution.

At this stage, Ladoja applied to the Court of Appeal to be joined in the suit as an interested party. His prayer was granted.

Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), the lead counsel to Adeleke and others, had therefore prayed the court to interpret section 188 of the constitution in relation to the reliefs sought.

The lawmakers, however, asked for seven reliefs. The reliefs were:

- A declaration that the purported notice of allegation of misconduct made against His Excellency, Senator Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, the Governor of Oyo State, as a preparatory step to his impeachment by the defendants is unconstitutional, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever, having regard to the provisions of S.188 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

- A declaration that the purported notice of allegation of misconduct made by the defendants against Ladoja, the Governor of Oyo State not having being received and or served on each of the 32 (thirty two) members of the Oyo State House of Assembly as envisaged by S. 188 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

- A declaration that the motion passed by the defendants on December 22, 2005 calling for the investigation of the allegation of misconduct against Ladoja, the governor of Oyo State, is in contravention of S. 188 (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and to that extent, the said motion is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

- A declaration that no valid notice of allegation of misconduct has been issued by the defendants, same not having been passed through the Clerk of the Oyo State House of Assembly nor received formally by the Honorable Speaker of the Oyo State House of Assembly, Hon. Adeolu Adeleke, in accordance with the provisions of S. 188 (2) Para (a) and (b) and S. 188 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

- A declaration that the purported suspension of the Draft Rules of the Oyo State House of Assembly 1999, by the defendants on December 13, 2005 preparatory to the issuance of the notice of allegation of misconduct against Ladoja, the governor of Oyo State, in the absence of the Honourable Speaker of the Oyo State House of Assembly, is unconstitutional invalid and contrary to the provision of SS. 101 and 102 of the 1999 Constitution and Rule 23 (1) – (4) of the Draft rules of Oyo State House of Assembly.

- A declaration that the purported sitting of the defendants at the D’rovans Hotel Ring Road, Ibadan where the purported notice of allegation of misconduct was issued, and which is outside the designated official venue of the Oyo State House of Assembly is unconstitutional, invalid, null and void.

- A declaration that the purported service of the notice of allegation of misconduct on Ladoja, the governor of Oyo State, through piece meal publication on the pages of the Nigerian Tribune newspaper which was not addressed to Senator Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja is no service on His Excellency, it is of no effect and it is a breach of his Constitutional right to fair hearing as contained in S. 36 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

- An order setting aside all the steps taken by the defendants in relation to the issuance of notice of allegation of misconduct, passage of motion to investigate same and the purported directive to the Chief Judge of Oyo State, the said steps having breached the provisions of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Ogebe, who read the lead judgment said the Court of Appeal was the opinion that the impeachment proceedings by the 18 lawmakers were illegal.

He declared that the sitting of the 18 lawmakers at D‘Rovans Hotel, pursuant to initiating impeachment proceedings against Ladoja, instead of the hallow chambers of the House was unconstitutional.

He said that the decision of the 18 lawmakers not to pass the allegations of gross misconduct through the Clerk of the House nor the sitting Speaker, Mr. Adeolu Adeleke, as another violation of the constitution.

He also declared as invalid the purported suspension of the draft rules of the OYHA 1999 on December 13, preparatory to the issuance of the notice of allegation of misconduct in the absence of Adeleke.

Ogebe queried the failure of the 18 lawmakers to avail their 14 other colleagues with copies of the allegation of gross misconduct as stipulated by Section 188 (2) of the constitution.

As a 32-member House, the appellate court felt that the 22 members, who ought to form two-thirds of the House, should have signed the impeachment notice, as against the 18 that carried out the exercise.

He also said the purported notice of allegation of gross misconduct served on Ladoja through the pages of the Nigerian Tribune newspaper, without addressing the publication to Ladoja, was a nullity.

He said, “This is a proper case for this court to exercise its powers under Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act to determine the merit of the originating summons.

“The critical question to determine in the originating summons is whether or not the steps taken by the 18 members out of the 32 members of the House of Assembly of Oyo State in holding a meeting in a hotel outside the official chambers of the House of Assembly in furtherance of impeachment proceedings under section 188 of the Constitution can be regarded as the proceedings of the Oyo State House of Assembly.

“Sections 90-105 of the Constitution provide for the establishment of a State House of Assembly; membership thereof, offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, the Clerk of the House and sittings of the House.

“It is clear from the constitutional provisions that the House of Assembly of a State is comprised of all the elected members of the House sitting in an official capacity in its designated chambers as the House of Assembly of a state with the Speaker or Deputy Speaker presiding.

“Its legislative functions including impeachment of a governor or even a Speaker must be carried out in its plenary session open to all members in an atmosphere that is free from fear, intimidation and violence.

“It follows therefore that a faction of a House even if it is the majority sitting in an unauthorised location without the principal officers of the House cannot amount to a sitting of a State House of Assembly. In other words, the factional meeting of the 18 members of the Oyo State House of Assembly in a hotel room could not amount to a constitutional meeting of a House of Assembly for the purpose of any valid business of the House.

“From the affidavit evidence accompanying the originating summons, it is clear that the Oyo State House of Assembly broke into two factions, one faction headed by the first plaintiff/appellant met on the 13 December at the Oyo State House of Assembly complex Ibadan while a faction of the 18 respondents met in D’Rovans Hotel, Ring Road, Ibadan.

“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. I hereby enter judgment for all appellants and grant their reliefs:

He further said that the Oyo State High Court erred in law by declining jurisdiction on the suit.

The judge said it was wrong of the High Court to have assumed that it could not intervene in impeachment matter.

He added, “For all I have said in this judgment I have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial judge was wrong in declining jurisdiction. Indeed he had jurisdiction to examine the claim in the light of section 188 subsections 1-9 of the 1999 Constitution and if he was not satisfied that the impeachment proceedings were instituted in compliance thereof. He has jurisdiction to intervene to ensure compliance.

“If on the other hand there was compliance with the pre-impeachment process then what happened thereafter was the internal affairs of the House of Assembly and he would have no jurisdiction to intervene.

“The learned counsel for the defendants’ respondents in his respondents’ notice urged this court to throw out the plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that plaintiffs/appellants have no locus standi. I do not agree with this submission.

“The plaintiffs/appellants were the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Oyo State House Assembly when the defendants/respondents purported to start the impeachment proceedings against Senator Ladoja without any reference to them inspite of the fact 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.

Clearly they have a locus to question the action of the defendants/respondents who purported to be acting on behalf of the whole House. There is no substance whatsoever in the Respondents’ Notice and I hereby dismiss it.

The judge refused to send the case back to the Oyo State High Court for determination.

He said, “Having held that the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the appellants’ originating summons, it is now for me to determine whether I should send the case back to the Oyo State High Court for fresh trial.

“The appellants have urged me to decide the case because it raises issue of constitutional interpretation of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution which this court is in a position to decide by virtue of Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act unconstitutionally, the court has inherent power under section 6(6) of the 1999 constitution to intervene. Section 6(6) reads, “The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section: (a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law;

“The powers shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person;

“It is my view that the trial court had serious questions to consider before hastily throwing out the suit. For example, it was alleged that 18 defendants/respondents met outside the chambers of the House of Assembly in a hotel to commence impeachment proceedings. The court had a duty to determine whether proceedings, before such a group amounted to proceedings of Oyo State House of Assembly.

“It was also alleged that the House of Assembly in Oyo State had 32 members and for the removal of a Governor which requires the resolution of two-thirds majority of all members of the House, the court had a duty to inquire whether a factional meeting of 18 members constituted the required two-thirds 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 Section 188 of the Constitution can amount to proper proceedings of impeachment.”

“The learned counsel for the defendants/respondents urged me not to decide the originating summons because this appeal has arisen only from the preliminary objection on jurisdiction.

“I have taken a look at the preliminary objection of the defendants/respondents in the court below and the grounds thereof earlier quoted in this judgment and I have also looked at the arguments of counsel before the lower court and the summary of the arguments in the ruling of the lower court and it is my view that all that needs to be said on the mirage of the claim has already been said in the record.

“Since the facts of the case are not disputed and what is to be decided is purely the interpretation of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution, this is an appropriate case for us to resolve the entire case in this court under Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act.

“It is necessary for us to do so in view of the fact that the rem of the dispute, that is who is the rightful Governor of Oyo State before the tenure ends in May next year should be determined without further delay.”

“The argument of the learned counsel of the defendants/respondents is that it is the constitution itself which ousts the jurisdiction of the court in section 188 (10) of the 1999 constitution, while giving the court powers under section 4(8) of the same constitution to strike down any law passed by the National Assembly or a state House of Assembly which ousts the jurisdiction of the court.

“The question is if section 188(10) is read in isolation from subsection 1-9, what is the purpose of subsection 1-9? Are the provisions in subsection 1-9 meant to guide the House of Assembly in impeachment proceedings only? What happens if they are totally ignored in impeachment proceedings?

“A court of law cannot close its eyes to the infringement of the constitution. It is the primary custodian of the constitution and if any arm of the government including the court itself acts unconstitutionally, the court has inherent power under section 6(6) of the 1999 constitution to intervene.”


twitterfacebook twitter google