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.
