A Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Governor of Ondo State, the state’s House of Assembly, its Attorney General and three others from taking any further steps in relation to the alleged probe of the state’s Chief Judge, Justice Oluwatoyin Akeredolu over a viral video made by one Olupelumi Fagboyegun.
Also to be affected by the order are the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Inspector General of Police (IGP), who are all listed as defendants in a suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2016/2021 filed by Justice Akeredolu.
Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the order on Thursday in a ruling on an ex-parte application filed by Justice Akeredolu, who alleged, among others that the decision by the state government, through the former Attorney General, Charles Titiloye, to refer the allegations made against her and the state’s judiciary by Fagboyegun in the viral video to the House of Assembly for investigation, was an illegal act designed to remove her from office.
Justice Ekwo particularly restrained the Governor, the AG and the House of Assembly from proceeding with the planned probe, and equally barred the AGF, NJC and the IGP from acting on any report submitted to them by the Ondo State government pending the determination of the main suit.
The judge, who granted all the four principal reliefs contained in the application moved by the plaintiff’s lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), ordered the service of all originating processes in the suit on the defendants and adjourned till March 5, 2021 for hearing of the plaintiff’s motion on notice.
Okutepa, while moving the application, noted that the Ondo AG had, after claiming to have investigated Fagboyegun’s allegation, without hearing from the CJ, made public a report where he said he found that Fagboyegun was granted bail on March 18, 2018 when he was arraigned before the Magistrate Court and was never detained as he claimed.
The lawyer wondered why Titiloye later referred the case to the Ondo State House of Assembly for further investigation even when he claimed Fagboyegun lied in his video.
He said: “We fear that if there is no intervention of the court, we think it is a ploy to get her out of office. We believe it has political undertone.”
In the main suit, the plaintiff is contending that the Ondo State Governor, the AG and the House of Assembly lacked the powers under the Constitution to investigate the Chief Judge for any allegation of professional misconduct.
She argued that it is the NJC that has such power, but that the NJC was not investigating her as at the time of commencing the case,
In a supporting affidavit, the plaintiff stated that after the video by Fagboyegun was allegedly published online by Dele Momodu and Femi Fani-Kayode, the then AG of Ondo State said he investigated the claim by Fagboyegun that the CJ instigated his detention for three years and found the claim to be false.
She added that despite the AG’s finding that Fagboyegun’s claims were false, “the same Hon. Attorney General of Ondo State, in further demonstration of the script he acted, said in the report that: This matter is further referred to Ondo State House of Assembly for investigation.”
Justice Akeredolu stated that the Ondo State governor, the AG and House of Assembly “have vowed to remove her from her office as Chief Judge of Ondo State on the trumped up allegations being sponsored on social media as aforesaid.
“That the third to fifth defendants (Ondo State governor, the AG and House of Assembly) have elicited the political support of the first and sixth defendants (the AGF and IGP) to illegally remove her from office when she has not been investigated by the second defendant (NJC), which has the constitutional duty to do so.”
She added that all the defendants, except the NJC “are planning to and will use unlawful means to remove her from office as Chief Judge of Ondo State and interfere with the performance of her judicial functions unless this court intervenes.”
The plaintiff stated that her rights to fair hearing and judicial duty and functions have been, are being and are likely to be contravened by the defendants, except the NJC, unless the court intervenes.