Fierce legal fireworks over the recent impeachment of Imo State Deputy Governor, Prince Eze Madumere, commenced Monday, in the State High Court, presided over by Justice Benjamin C. Iheka.
A glimpse of what was in the offing reared its head when Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, announced his presence for the Speaker, Imo State House of Assembly and Imo State House of Assembly, while the State Attorney-General, AG, Mr. Milletus Nlemadim, SAN, remained for the Chief Judge.
Madumere’s counsel, Prince Ken C. O. Njemanze, SAN, told the Court that the provisions of Section 188(5) of the Nigerian Constitution as amended remains central to the suit.
“This provision is very clear and unambiguous. It does not need any external aid for its interpretation. The provision is very mandatory for the Chief Judge, CJ, to appoint a seven-man panel to investigate the alleged sins of Prince Madumere, within seven days of the Speaker’s request. This was not complied with.
“When the Constitution says that the CJ must act within the specified time, he must comply, otherwise his act thereafter will be null, void and of no effect. The prescribed time cannot be enlarged or extended without doing extensive harm to the Constitution and the aggrieved party.
“From the facts before this honourable Court, the CJ appointed the seven-man panel on July 20, 2018, and the Defendants clearly confirmed this date in their counter affidavits. The appointment was made nine days after the motion by the House of Assembly and the request of the Assembly Speaker.
“We urge this honourable Court to hold that having done so outside the stipulated time, the appointment of the seven-man panel by the CJ is null, void and of no effect.
“The alleged submission of the panel report is very doubtful and indeed, false. Who prepared the document? Who signed it? The Court can’t be left to speculate on these issues. This purported report made by the panelists, is in the custody of the second to 10 Defendants.
“They did not find it worthy to exhibit the document in court. The presumption on our side is that no such document exists and the court should so hold.
“It is the contention of the plaintiff that the document was made in flagrant disobedience of the Order of Court and it should be totally discountenanced by the Court.
“The Imo State House of Assembly produced what they called the panel report. Looking at the purported document, the name of the person that submitted it is not there. There is nothing to show who received it and who received it. How are we sure that what we have in court is the report we are talking about?
“The purported report was not signed by anybody. The names of the makers of the document are not there. The report fell short of the required standard expected of the panel set up by the Chief Judge,” Njemanze said.
He debunked the presentation of the AG that an Abuja High Court Judge restrained the Imo CJ from appointing the seven-man panel.
“From the document exhibited the Defence counsel exhibited, the CJ still had ample time to set up the panel, when the Abuja Court allegedly vacated its earlier order, but he failed to do so. I urge the Court to disregard the arguments of the Defence,” Njemanze pleaded.
Arguing his matter, the AG said it was misleading to say that the CJ acted out of time, pointing out that “there was a subsisting Court Order, restraining the CJ from constituting the seven-man panel.”
Continuing, Nlemadim said that “the order was vacated by the same Court on July 16, 2018, and the CJ thereafter constituted the panel.”
In his own submission, Ikpeazu urged the Court to, among other things, hold that the plaintiff, from its submissions, is merely asking the Court to give evidence in the suit.
Before adjourning the matter sine die, Justice Iheka said that all parties would be properly informed when ruling would be given.
