Deputy Governor Philip Shaibu, on Wednesday, prayed the seven-member investigative panel on his planned impeachment to obey an interlocutory injunction of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court.

Mr Shaibu, through his lawyer, Oladoyin Awoyale, said the panel’s sitting to investigate him would amount to fait accompli.

He argued that the court had granted a subsisting order of interlocutory injunction and adjourned the hearing to April 8.

Awoyale argued that with the court’s order, all parties are advised to obey the ruling.

However, counsel to the Edo House of Assembly and the deputy clerk (legal department), Joe Oaifi, argued that the panel’s sitting was supported by Section 188 (10) of the constitution, which foreclosed any court from preventing the House of Assembly and the panel from discharging its constitutional responsibilities.

The chief judge of Edo, Daniel Okungbowa, constituted a panel headed by retired Justice S. A. Omonuwa.

The panel is mandated to investigate the allegation of misconduct against the deputy governor.

The high court declined to grant Mr Shaibu’s application, directing Governor Godwin Obaseki, the parliament, and others in his case to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The development occurred after Justice James Omotosho refused to grant the oral application made by Mr Shaibu’s lawyer.

In a motion ex parte marked FHC/ABJ/CS/321/2024, the embattled deputy governor had sued the Edo government, governor, house of assembly and speaker as first to fourth defendants.

The suit also names the assembly clerk, chief judge, inspector general of Police, and director-general of the State Security Service as the fifth and eighth defendants, respectively.

In the motion dated and filed March 8, Mr Shaibu sought an interim injunction restraining the third to fifth defendants from interfering with the res (subject matter) of the originating summons.

He also sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants jointly or severally from taking any adverse actions in relation to any attempt or process targeted at his removal from office as deputy governor of Edo pending the hearing of the motion on notice.

He urged the court to make an order restraining the 1st to 8th defendants from preventing him from performing his official duties and discharging his responsibilities, including attending the State Executive Council meetings, functions and other duties.

On March 13, the judge refused to grant the ex parte motion after Mr Awoyale moved it.

Instead, the judge ordered the lawyer to serve all the defendants with the processes and hearing notices and adjourned until March 18 for hearing.

But on Tuesday, when the matter came up, Mr Awoyale told the court that he was unable to serve some of the defendants, and the judge adjourned until today to hear another motion filed.

Upon resumed hearing on Wednesday, Mr Awoyale informed the court that he had an application dated March 8. He said the motion sought an order granting leave to them to effect service of the originating summons and other processes on the first and second defendants by substituted means, such as pasting the documents at the gate of the Edo government House or by courier service.

The lawyer said the motion also sought an order granting leave to effect service of the processes on the third and fourth defendants by substituted means, through pasting it at the Edo House of Assembly gate or by courier service.

He urged the court to grant their prayers.

He said the sixth, seventh and eighth defendants had been served.

Mr Awoyale then prayed the court for an order for parties to maintain a status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

He cited previous cases to back his submission.

The judge turned down Mr Awoyale’s request for an order for parties to maintain the status quo.

“Counsel, you know that it is not possible,” he said.

The judge held that the previous case cited by the lawyer was not applicable in the instant suit.

He added that in the authority cited about military administrator of Lagos, all the parties in the suit had been served, but in the present case, some parties were yet to be served.

“Today, we are just seeking leave to serve the parties by substituted means. So can this court grant this? The answer is no,” the judge said.

The judge, however, advised the lawyer to apply for a fiat through the Federal High Court chief judge so that their case could be heard during vacation, as the court would commence its vacation on Friday.

The judge, who granted the leave for substituted service as prayed by the lawyer, adjourned the matter until April 15 for hearing.

(NAN)