..as Clerk declares Aribisogan’s impeachment by 17 lawmakers in line with Constitution, House Rules
An Ekiti State High Court sitting in Ado Ekiti has ruled that oral evidence would be needed to resolve the suit filed against the election of the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Olubunmi Adelugba, by former Speaker Gboyega Aribisogan.
Defendants in the suit are the Ekiti State House of Assembly (1st), the Clerk, Ekiti State House of Assembly (2nd) and the incumbent Speaker, Rt. Hon. Adelugba (3rd).
Aribisogan filed the suit to challenge his impeachment on 21st November last year at a plenary presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Rt. Hon. Hakeem Jamiu during which Rt. Hon. Adelugba was elected as the Speaker becoming the first woman to occupy the position in Ekiti State.
In the course of the trial of the case, the Claimant was represented by Mr. Stanley Imhamrour while the Defendants were represented by Chief R.O. Balogun.
Delivering his ruling in the suit, Justice Adekunle Adeleye, held that facts deposed to in the affidavit of evidence of the parties disclosed disputed facts that can only be resolved by oral evidence.
The judge held that in the instant suit, for reason of dispute as to facts, it was his view that the suit be resolved by Writ of Summons and not Originating Summons by which it was commenced by the Claimant, Aribisogan.
Justice Adeleye ruled: “It has been decided upon that what is forbidden in Originating Summons proceeding is substantial dispute of facts. See: Alfa v. Attai & ors. (2017) LPELR-42579 (SC), Dapianlong & ors v. Dariye & anor (2007) LPELR-928 (SC).
“Consequently, there is need for oral evidence to be adduced to enable the court resolve these issues, since the issues cannot be resolved by affidavit evidence.
“Material facts should not be in serious contention between the parties. Oral evidence will be required for the resolution of the dispute. See: Doherty v. Doherty (1967) All NLR 243, Famfa Oil Ltd v. Attorney General of the Federation (2003) 18 NWLR (pt 852) 453.
“Exhibits A and B are not adequate to resolve the conflict between the affidavits. Content of Exhibit B is extraneous to the main issue, while facts surrounding the exercise in Exhibit A cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence, but on oral evidence.
“On the Reply Affidavit filed by the Claimant, in reaction to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Defendants, I find that certain paragraphs of the Reply Affidavit offend the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act. Section 115 of the Evidence Act provides that an affidavit shall not contain any extraneous matter by way of objection, prayer, legal argument or conclusion. See: Emeka v. Chuba-Ikpeazu & ors (2017) LPERL-41920 (SC). Agbaso v. Iwunze & ors (2019) LPELR-48906 (SC).
“Learned counsel for the Defendants urged the court to strike out certain paragraphs of the Reply Affidavit of the Claimant, for being in contravention of the provisions in Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act 2011.
“I am at one with learned counsel, that the said depositions are in breach of the provisions of Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, as they are legal argument, conclusion, and of criminal allegation which ought to be pleaded with particularity.
“I have dispassionately perused each of the paragraphs contained in the reply affidavit. Paragraphs 10,15,25-29,34-37,39,50,52,53 and 57 amount to facts that ought to be presser in oral argument by counsel. They amount to legal argument.
“The depositions contained in Paragraphs
11,12,14,16,30,31,46,49,53,54,55,56,57 and 58 amount to conclusions, which ordinarily should be left for the court to arrive at a conclusion.
“The depositions contained in Paragraph 32 raises allegation of forgery which ought to be pleaded with particularity. Consequently, the offending paragraphs containing extraneous matters. They are liable to be struck out and are hereby struck out.
“On the whole the facts deposed to in the affidavit evidence of the parties disclosed disputed facts that can only be resolved by oral evidence.
“In the instant suit,for reason of dispute as to facts, it is my view that the suit is best resolved by Writ of Summons.
“Consequent upon the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that pleading be filed by both parties in accordance with the provisions of the rules of the Ekiti State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2020.”
However, the Clerk of the Assembly, Mr. Tola Esan, in a 26-paragraph counter affidavit already before the court averted that Aribisogan’s impeachment was carried out by 17 lawmakers contrary to the former Speaker’s claim that seven members carried out the impeachment.
The Clerk who averred that the impeachment was carried out on line with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Assembly’s Standing Rules stressed that “unimpeachable facts and evidence about compliance with the procedures by members of the Assembly before the claimant was impeached abound.”
He further averred: “I know as a fact that it is true that the claimant was elected as the Speaker of the Ekiti State House of Assembly on 15th November, 2022 but the House shortly after his swearing-in as the Speaker discovered various atrocities and infractions of the Constitution and the Rules of the House perpetrated by the Claimant and with other sox members of the Ekiti State House of Assembly.
“I know as a fact that majority of Honourable Members of the Ekiti State House of Assembly were furious and disappointed with the atrocities committed by the Claimant, and he was served with the Notice or Impeachment on 16th November, 2022.
“The Notice was duly signed by seventeen members of the Ekiti State House of Assembly which contained four serious allegations levelled against the Claimant. The Certified True Copy of the endorsement copy of the Notice of Impeachment is hereby attached as Exhibit Assembly 1.
“I know as fact that the Notice of Impeachment was served on the Claimant on 16th November, 2022 immediately it was signed by seventeen (17) members of the House through the Office of the Speaker as contained in the endorsement copy of the Notice.
“The secretary in the Speaker’s office confirmed to me on 17th November, 2022 in my office at about 11.00am and I verily believe her to be true and correct that the attention of the claimant was promptly drawn to the Notice of Impeachment the same 16th November, 2022. I was equally served with the Notice of Impeachment the same date for my record and necessary action.
“I know as a fact that the claimant ignored the Notice of Impeachment as he never offered any explanation or made any representation to defend himself when he was afforded that opportunity as required by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Rules of the Ekiti State House of Assembly.
“I know as fact that because of the urgency the issue of the Notice Impeachment demands, a parliamentary meeting was convened by Deputy Speaker, Hon. Hakeem Ayodeji Jamiu as required by the Rules of the House. The meeting was held on 18th November, 2022 with fourteen members in attendance and the claimant with and other six members among others were excused for obvious reasons as they cannot be a judge in their own case.
“I know as a fact that at the Parliamentary Meeting, it was resolved that an Ad-Hoc Investigation Committee be set up to investigate the allegations levelled against Mr Speaker. The Chairman of the Committee was Hon. Johnson Oyekola Bode-Adeoye while the secretary was Hon. O. Reuben Awoyemi. The committee was mandated to turn in its report within 72 hours. The Deputy Speaker requested the committee to produce the Minutes of the Parliamentary Meeting for record purposes and make available to members. The Minutes of the Parliamentary Meeting held on 18th November, 2022 is hereby attached as Exhibit Assembly 2.
“I know as a fact that the Ad Hoc Investigative Committee submitted its report and it was recommended that the Claimant be impeached and placed on suspension alongside other sox Honourable Members of the House, having found them liable and actually committed the atrocities as contained in the Notice of Impeachment. The Report of Investigative Ad-Hoc Committee is attached Exhibit Assembly 3.
“I know as a fact that the Plenary sitting was fixed for 21st November, 2022 to consider the Report of the Ad-Hoc Investigative Committee on the Notice of Impeachment among other agenda as set out in the Order Paper for Monday, 21st November, 2022. The Order Paper is attached as Exhibit Assembly 4.
“I know as a fact that the Report of the Investigative Committee was deliberated upon and it was resolved that the claimant be impeached and placed on suspension with other six honorable members of the House having been found culpable of the allegations levelled against them.
“I know as a fact in my capacity as the Clerk of the Ekiti State House of Assembly, I called for Nomination of the Honourable Speaker after the impeachment of the claimant. I know the 3rd Defendant was nominated by Hon. Babatunde Abiodun Fawekun from Ido/Osi 1 and was seconded by Hon. Ademola Martins Ojo from Ijero and the 3rd Defendant accepted her nomination for the position of the Speaker of the Ekiti State House of Assembly.
“I know that I declared the nomination closed since there was no other nomination. I informed the honourable members that Hon. Olubunmi Adelugba (the 3rd Defendant) was nominated unopposed and I thereafter declared her the Speaker of the Ekiti State House of Assembly. The Roll Call of the sitting of the House on 21st November, 2022 and the Votes and Proceedings of the same date are hereby attached as Exhibits Assembly 4 and 5 respectively.”