Ekiti: Oral evidence needed to resolve Speaker’s impeachment suit – Court

An Ekiti State High Court sitting in Ado Ekiti, has ruled that an oral evidence would be needed to resolve the suit filed against the election of the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Olubunmi Adelugba, by his predecessor, Gboyega Aribisogan.

Defendants in the suit are the Ekiti State House of Assembly (1st), the Clerk, Ekiti State House of Assembly (2nd) and the incumbent Speaker, Rt. Hon. Adelugba (3rd).

Aribisogan filed the suit to challenge his impeachment on 21st November last year at a plenary presided over by the Deputy Speaker, Rt. Hon. Hakeem Jamiu during which Rt. Hon. Adelugba was elected as the Speaker becoming the first woman to occupy the position in Ekiti State.

In the course of the trial of the case, the Claimant was represented by Mr. Stanley Imhamrour while the Defendants were represented by Chief R.O. Balogun.

Delivering his ruling in the suit, Justice Adekunle Adeleye, held that facts deposed to in the affidavit of evidence of the parties disclosed disputed facts that can only be resolved by oral evidence.

The judge held that in the instant suit, for reason of dispute as to facts, it was his view that the suit be resolved by Writ of Summons and not Originating Summons by which it was commenced by the Claimant, Aribisogan.

However, the Clerk of the Assembly, Mr. Tola Esan, in a 26-paragraph counter affidavit already before the court averred that Aribisogan’s impeachment was carried out by 17 lawmakers contrary to the former Speaker’s claim that seven members carried out the impeachment.

The Clerk, who averred that the impeachment was carried out on line with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Assembly’s Standing Rules stressed that “unimpeachable facts and evidence about compliance with the procedures by members of the Assembly before the claimant was impeached abound.”

Justice Adeleye ruled: “It has been decided upon that what is forbidden in Originating Summons proceeding is substantial dispute of facts. See: Alfa v. Attai & ors. (2017) LPELR-42579 (SC), Dapianlong & ors v. Dariye & anor (2007) LPELR-928 (SC).

“Consequently, there is need for oral evidence to be adduced to enable the court to resolve these issues, since the issues cannot be resolved by affidavit evidence.

“Material facts should not be in serious contention between the parties. Oral evidence will be required for the resolution of the dispute. See: Doherty v. Doherty (1967) All NLR 243, Famfa Oil Ltd v. Attorney General of the Federation (2003) 18 NWLR (pt 852) 453.

“Exhibits A and B are not adequate to resolve the conflict between the affidavits. Content of Exhibit B is extraneous to the main issue, while facts surrounding the exercise in Exhibit A cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence, but on oral evidence.

“On the whole the facts deposed to in the affidavit evidence of the parties disclosed disputed facts that can only be resolved by oral evidence.

“In the instant suit, for reasons of dispute as to facts, it is my view that the suit is best resolved by Writ of Summons.

“Consequent upon the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that pleading be filed by both parties in accordance with the provisions of the rules of the Ekiti State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2020.”