Former Deputy Governor of Edo State, Mr. Philip Shaibu.
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered accelerated hearing of a suit the former Deputy Governor of Edo State, Mr. Philip Shaibu, filed to set aside his impeachment by the State House of Assembly.
Recall Shaibu was on April 8, impeached by lawmakers in Edo state for allegedly exposing top government secrets in the public domain.
His impeachment came after the high court had already fixed April 15 to hear a suit the embattled former governor filed to challenge the plot to remove him from office.
The court had on the strength of an application that was filed by the plaintiff, directed that all the relevant court processes should be served on both Governor Godwin Obaseki and the Edo State House of Assembly, through substituted means.
It specifically directed that the processes should be served on the defendants, by pasting same at the entrance gate of the Edo State Government House, as well as at the gate of the State House of Assembly Complex, both in Benin.
However, few hours after the order of substituted service was issued by the court, the erstwhile deputy governor was impeached, even as governor Obaseki promptly appointed a 38-year-old engineer, Godwin Omobayo, as his replacement.
Meanwhile, at the resumed proceeding in the matter on Wednesday, Justice James Omotosho, before fixing June 3 for full-blown hearing of the case, ordered that the new deputy governor, Omobayo, should be joined as a defendant in the matter.
The court equally dismissed a preliminary objection the Speaker of the Edo State Assembly filed for his name to be struck out from the suit.
Justice Omotosho upheld argument by counsel to the plaintiff, Mr. Ayotunde Ogunleye, SAN, that both the Speaker and the new deputy governor are necessary parties in the suit.
He held that inview of the provision of section 188 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Speaker, whose name featured prominently in the impeachment process, ought to be heard so that any judgement the court eventually delivers in the matter, would be binding on him.
Justice Omotosho invoked Order 17 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules and ordered the plaintiff to amend his originating processes and reflect names of the duo as defendants in the suit.
Previous cited as defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/321/2024, were: the Edo State Government, Edo State Governor, Edo State House of Assembly, Edo State House of Assembly Speaker, the Clerk of the Assembly, the Chief Judge of Edo State, Inspector General of Police IGP and the Director General of the Department of State Services DSS.
The plaintiff had approached the court, praying it for an order, restraining the 3rd and 5th defendants from commencing any process by issuing a notice of allegation, holding proceedings, or setting up any panel of investigation for his removal, pending the hearing of his motion on notice.
He equally sought an order of interim injunction, restraining the defendants, whether by themselves or their agents, from interfering with the subject matter of the originating summons filed in the suit, either by way of taking any adverse actions in relation to any attempt or process targeted at his removal from office as the deputy governor of Edo State, pending the hearing of the motion on notice.
Other reliefs the plaintiff sought before the court, included: “An order of interim injunction, restraining the 1st to 8th defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, privies, servants, officials, representatives, and or any other person or authority acting through them, from preventing the plaintiff either by threat of removal from office or adverse actions capable of hindering the plaintiff from performing his official duties and discharging his responsibilities as the Deputy Governor of Edo State, including attending State Executive Council meetings, functions and other duties.”
As well as, “An order of interim injunction directing the defendants herein jointly, whether by themselves, their agents, privies, servants, officials, representatives, or any other person or authority acting through them, to maintain status quo ante bellum prevailing before the issuance of the purported notice or petition to commence removal of the Plaintiff from office pending the hearing and the final determination of the motion on notice.”
The court had yet to decide the matter, when the plaintiff was impeached from office by the lawmakers.
Shaibu has maintained his ordeal was a witch hunt borne by his aspiration to contest the impending governorship election in the state.