BREAKING: Obaseki Responds To Allegations As Court Reserves Judgement On ‘Planned Impeachment’ Of Deputy Governor
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has reserved judgment till September 7 in the case filed by the Deputy Governor of Edo state, Comrade Philip Shaibu, against Governor Godwin Obaseki wherein he accused his principal of allegedly conniving with the state’s House of Assembly and security agencies to impeach him ahead of the 2024 gubernatorial poll in the state.
Joined in the case as defendants were the Inspector General of Police, State Security Service, Governor Godwin Obaseki, Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly and the state’s Chief Judge.
In his main suit, Shuaibu’s lawyer, George Ibrahim, urged Justice A.R. Mohammed to restrain the defendants from stopping him “from carrying out the functions of his office as deputy governor of Edo State, including attending the state executive council meeting.”
At the hearing on Tuesday, George Ibrahim told the court that while the defendants are claiming his case focuses solely on impeachment, there is an alleged scheme by Obaseki to use the rest of the defendants to prevent Shuaibu from exercising his constitutional functions as deputy governor.
“They have not denied the fact that the gate between the deputy governor and the governor has been locked,” Ibrahim said, tackling the DSS, and other respondents.
He further alleged that even the Oba of Benin and certain prominent personalities in the state sought to intervene in the rift between his client and the governor but that “Obaseki insisted he (Shuaibu) must publicly renounced his plans to join the All Progressives Congress”
On his part, DSS counsel, I. Awo adopted his counter affidavit processes, denying knowledge of Shuaibu’s impeachment’ claims.
He said the plaintiff has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the DSS.
“None of the facts or evidence shows any step by any of the defendants that amounts to impeachment against the plaintiff,” Awo said, urging the court to dismiss the suit for being a baseless allegation.
He further argued that the allegations of the deputy governor are to his “exclusive knowledge” and are hearsay.
“No particulars were supplied as to how the plaintiff became knowledgeable of his facts,” he said, urging the court to declare that impeachment exercise was Constitutional while asking the court to dismiss the suit.
“The DSS has statutory function in providing security details to the governor among others and its operatives have done that responsibly as they do not interfere in the politics,” Awo maintained.
Obaseki’s counsel, A. E. Mosiah SAN, raised objection to the case.
He said the police and the DSS were deliberately joined in the case by the deputy governor to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
“The case (of impeachment plans) is founded on speculation, suspicion and generic statements about a pending Impeachment,” he added.
He further contended that the 1999 Constitution states that the responsibility of a deputy governor is as vested on him by the governor who, according to him, has absolute discretion to assign or withdraw any responsibility assigned to the deputy governor.
He argued that the only thing that is pedestrian about the suit is that the deputy governor claimed the security agents refused to open the gate to the governor’s residence for him.
“To come and talk about state security officers not opening the gate is absurd,” he added.
On the planned impeachment, Mosiah held that the plaintiff had not provided evidence of the State House of Assembly initiating such exercise.
He said the deputy governor should have waited for the impeachment proceedings to commence before coming to court, adding his allegations are based on speculation.
He further accused the deputy governor of shunning official meetings with Governor Obaseki, urging the court to dismiss the matter.
Oluwole A. SAN, counsel for the Edo Chief Judge , Justice Daniel Iyobosa, urged the court to declare that the action of the deputy governor is premature, incompetent and ought to be dismissed for being speculative.
The CJ, in his counter affidavit, urged the court to note that no court can question the impeachment exercise of a State Assembly.
“This matter is reserved for judgment on September 7,” Justice A.R. Mohammed held.
