Culled from the imotrumpeta:
The heat is getting hotter and hotter on the suit filed by the outered deputy governor of Imo
State, Sir Jude Agbaso challenging his impeachment by the Imo State House of Assembly
(IMHA), as the led counsel of the defendant Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN) yesterday denied his
lawyer Barr FA Aofolaju that represented him on one of the sitting on June 10th 2013.
Earlier, the court had called up the case for adoption of briefs and hearing of both the
preliminary objections together with substantive suit as agreed by the parties on the 10th of
June. Surprisingly, the led counsel to the 1st to 3rd defendant, Chief Akintola (SAN) who has
not appeared in person since June, consented to the earlier agreement by his representative,
Barr Aofolaju to argue that the preliminary objections should be taken first especially the one
that borders on jurisdiction. Akintola’s argument was supported by the 4th defendant, attorney
general who was represented by Barr JC Ibe who had earlier agreed to take both the
preliminary objection and substantive suit together.
KCO Njemanze, in his response argued that the court maintains its earlier order to take the two
together.
Justice Nonye Okonkwo, resolved the issue by allowing the parties to take the preliminary
objection on jurisdiction first as court proceeding demands.
Presenting his case on the motion on jurisdiction, Chief Akintola said that the court lacks the
competence to hear the substantive suit, because the case is not different from the case
handled by high court which is now pending at the appeal court, submitting that it therefore
amounts to court contempt.
He also holds that the impeachment and it processes were justified and constitutional because
the entire House Members endorsed it. He therefore urge the court to dismiss the suit as it has
no jurisdiction to handle it, Barr Ibe concord with the learned SAN’s submissions.
Responding, KCO Njemanze, adopted his two written address before going on to tell the court
that the suits are not the same as alleged by the defendant, because the other suit was filed
while his client was still in office therefore has nothing to do with the substantive suit of
impeachment before the court and moreover the defendant did not make available any
document to prove his argument.
Citing some Supreme Court authorities, the learned SAN averred that the impeachment
process contravened the constitutional provisions of section 188 sub 1 to 9 of the 1999
constitution as amended, which demands for strict compliance. He also maintained that his
client was not properly notified on the impeachment process which demands personal
notification and asked the court to throw away the motion for lack of merit.
However, the presiding judge, Justice Okoronkwo, after taking all argument and counter
argument adjourned the case to the 30th of September for ruling on the argued motion of
jurisdiction.
0 Comments