Court decline to stop Jonathan's impeachment

Huhuonline.com understands that a federal High court sitting Abuja, Friday, declined to stop the House of Representatives from commencing impeachment proceedings against President Goodluck Jonathan.

Justice Gabriel Kolawole stated that the court must be very certain that the impeachment proceedings is on course before it can entertain the suit in order not to interfere with the responsibilities of the Legislative arm of government.

Besides, the court held that sections 143 (1) of the 1999 constitution requires a joint impeachment resolution of both arms of the National Assembly before the president can be removed.

According to the court, by not joining the Senate as a party to the suit the motion ex-parte cannot succeed.

Kolawole further held "this may not be the proper occasion for this court to grant ex parte order against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as the reliefs sought by the plaintiff largely benefits the president.

He accordingly refused the ex parte order and adjourned the matter sine dine for the Registrar for the Chief Judge to re-assigned the case.

  Normal.dotm 0 0 1 465 2654 huhuonline 22 5 3259 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false

The case was filed by National Chairman of African Liberation Party (ALP) Dr. Emmanuel Osita Okereke at the heat of agitation by members of  House of Representatives to commence impeachment proceedings against President Goodluck Jonathan over budget implementation.

 
Justice Gabriel Kolawole reserved ruling Thursday after listening to an ex parte application also filed by  Dr. Emmanuel Osita Okereke.

 
Counsel to the plaintiff/ applicant, Alex Williams had while moving the application prayed the court to grant an interim order restraining the leadership of the House from proceeding with the impeachment as it was capable of distracting the president from discharging his duties.

 
Listed as defendants in the suit are the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the House of Representatives' the National Assembly; the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister for Justice and President Goodluck Jonathan.

 
In his affidavit in support of the originating summons, the plaintiff stated that the move to impeach the president from office for non implementation of 100 percent of the 2012 budget in July 2012 is heating up the polity.

Besides he averred that the September deadline issued by the House for 100 percent implementation of the budget which is three months earlier than the end of 2012 calendar year and six months from the end of the 2012 budget / fiscal year is a disguise to cause political turmoil.

The plaintiff in his  originating summons posed nine questions for the determination by the court as follows:

*Upon proper reading and interpretation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 ad amended, whether any provision of the Constitution made 100 percent implementation of the Federal budget of Nigeria for each fiscal year as appropriated by National Assembly mandatory.

*Upon proper reading and interpretation of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, whether the National Assembly are empowered to impeach the president from office for failure to implement the budget by 100 percent for any given fiscal year?

* Whether the constitution prescribed any time frame or date in each fiscal year within which to declare the budget as non-implemented?

If the above questions are answered in his favour, then the court should proceed to grant the following reliefs:

*A declaration that the move by the National Assembly to impeach the president from office for non-implementation of 100 percent of the 2012 of the budget is premature, abuse of legislative powers, malevolent, unconditional, null and void.

*An order of perpetual injunction restraining the leadership of the National Assembly from impeaching the president for non-implementation of 100 percent of the budget as appropriated

*An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from harassing or further harassing the president with threats of impeachment or commencing any process of Impeachment of the president for non-implementation of 100 percent of the budget.

*An order prohibiting the president or the Executive arm of government from hurriedly executing any part of the budget when/where the circumstances at hand does not permit prudent execution of such.