Inakoju & Ors v. Adeleke & Ors (2007)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

NIKI TOBI, J.S.C. (Delivering the LeadingJudgment)

On 7th December, 2006, I dismissedthis appeal and I indicated that I will
give myreasons on 12th January, 2007. I will do so here.Senator Rasheed Adewolu Ladoja, the partyinterested and 3rd respondent
became theGovernor of Oyo State in May, 2003.

I think he was sworn in as Governor of the State on 29th May,2003. Alao-Akala
became the Deputy Governor. The relationship was cordial until some members ofthe Oyo State House of Assembly purportedly removed
Senator Ladoja as Governor of Oyo Stateand swore in Alao-Akala, the Deputy Governor, asGovernor. As from that moment, things
started5falling apart not only between Senator Ladoja andthe members who removed him from office but alsobetween Senator Ladoja
and Alao-Akala.

Let me briefly tell the story leading to theremoval of Senator Ladoja as Governor of OyoState as told by the respondents in
their affidavit insupport of the originating summons. On 13thDecember, 2005, the Oyo State House of Assemblysat at the usual
Assembly Complex Secretariat,Ibadan.

The appellants sat at D’Rovans Hotel, RingRoad, Ibadan, where they purportedly
suspendedthe Draft Rules of the Oyo State House ofAssembly. The appellants purportedly issued anotice of allegation of
misconduct against SenatorLadoja, the Governor, with the purpose ofcommencing impeachment proceedings againsthim.

On 22nd December, 2005, without followingthe laid down rules, regulations and theConstitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
theappellants purportedly passed a motion calling forthe investigation of the allegations of misconductagainst Senator Ladoja
without the concurrentconsent and approval of the two-thirds majority ofthe 32 member House of Assembly. The purportednotice of
allegations of misconduct against theGovernor was not served on each member of theHouse of Assembly.

Aggrieved by the procedure of removing SenatorLadoja, the respondents as plaintiffs, filed an actionat the High Court of
Justice, Oyo State by way oforiginating summons. They asked for sixdeclaratory reliefs and three orders setting aside6the steps
taken by the appellants/defendants “inrelation to the issuance of notice of allegation ofmisconduct, passage of motion to
investigate sameand injunction restraining theappellants/defendants, their agents, servants,privies or through any person or
persons fromtaking any further steps, sitting, starting, orcontinuing to inquire or deliberate on, theinvestigation and
impeachment proceedings of HisExcellency, Senator Rasheed Adewolu Ladoja.”

The action was supported by a 17-paragraph
affidavit.In a preliminary objection, the appellants asapplicants contended that the court lackedjurisdiction to entertain the
suit and that theplaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the suit.They also contended that the claims did not disclosea
reasonable cause of action.

In his ruling of 28th December, 2005, thelearned trial Judge, Ige, J., upheld the preliminaryobjection that he had no
jurisdiction to deal withthe matter. He said at page 57 of the record:”When the House of Assembly is exercising
itsconstitutional powers in relation to impeachmentproceedings or any matter relating thereto, it isperforming a quasi judicial
function.

Thus it is provided in Sub-Section 11 of Section 188 of the1999 Constitution that the power to determinewhat
constitutes gross misconduct or a conduct thatwill lead to impeachment proceedings lies with theHouse of Assembly and not in
the Court. By thecombined effect of the above provisions therefore,and having regard to the nature of the reliefs7claimed by
the plaintiffs, it is clear beyondargument that the jurisdiction of this court isclearly ousted.Impeachment and related
proceedings are purelypolitical matters over which this court cannotintervene.

The action is not justiciable. See ChiefEnyi
Abaribe v. The Speaker, Abia State House ofAssembly and Ors. (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.788) p. 466at p. 492. It is not part of the
duty of the court toforage into areas that ought to vest either directlyor impliedly in the legislature such as the issue
ofimpeachment which is a matter that comes withinthe purely internal affairs of the House ofAssembly. The court will therefore
declinejurisdiction in this matter. The objection of learnedcounsel for the defendants/respondents is upheld.The originating
summons is accordingly dismissed.”

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Ogebe, JCA,held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hearthe matter. He said at page 486
of the record:”For all I have said in this judgment I have nohesitation in holding that the learned trial Judgewas wrong in
declining jurisdiction. Indeed he hadjurisdiction to examine the claim in the light ofSection 188 Subsections 1-9 of the
1999Constitution and if he was not satisfied that theimpeachment proceedings were instituted incompliance thereof, he has
jurisdiction to interveneto ensure compliance.

If on the other hand therewas compliance with the pre-impeachment processthat
what happened thereafter was the internalaffair of the House of Assembly and he would have8no jurisdiction to intervene.”The
learned Justice of the Court of Appealinvoked the powers conferred on the court bySection 16 of the Court of Appeal Act and
took themerits of the matter before the High Court. Hegave judgment to the respondents. Ogebe, JCA,said at page 489 of the
record:”It is my view that no factional meeting ofany members of a State House of Assembly canamount to a constitutional
meeting of the wholeHouse of Assembly as envisaged and provided for inthe Constitution.

There was no counter-affidavit before
the lower court to prove that any member ofthe House of Assembly of Oyo State was suspendedor that the plaintiffs/appellants
were removed asSpeaker and Deputy Speaker in accordance withthe provisions of the Constitution. It followstherefore that all
the steps taken by the faction ofthe defendants/respondents purporting to initiateimpeachment of Senator Ladoja as Governor of
OyoState were not actions of the Oyo State House ofAssembly under Section 188 of the 1999Constitution. Consequently, I allow
the appeals ofthe plaintiffs/appellants and the interestedparty/appellant and set aside the ruling of the trialcourt declining
jurisdiction. I hereby enterjudgment for the appellants and grant the followingreliefs …”