THE DAWN IS CAST! Wishing You All The Best Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi facebook/permalink.php?story_fbid=606357732819783&id=311805035608389 Whether their Lordships of the Court below were right in holding that the appointment, confirmation and swearing in of the 6th Respondent (Alh. Garba Umar) as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State was proper. The substantive action questions the validity of the process of impeachment and the subsequent impeachment of His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State. The two (2) motions for injunction were to restrain the 1st Respondent (Taraba State House Assembly) from, inter alia, confirming the appointment of the 6th Respondent (Alh. Garba Umar). The motions were only withdrawn after the 1st Respondent (Taraba State House of Assembly) had gone ahead to appoint the 6th Respondent (Alh. Garba Umar) despite their pendency. His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar submitted before the Supreme Court of Justice that irrespective of the fact that his appeal was dismissed by the Court below, the appointment, confirmation and swearing-in of the 6th Respondent (Alh. Garba Umar) as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State before the final determination of the substantive actions is a nullity. See OJUKWU VS GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1986) 3 NWLR (PART 26) PAGE 39. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 188 OF THE CONSTITUTION HAVING NOT BEEN RELIGIOUSLY COMPLIED WITH, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE. In Inakoju Vs Adeleke (supra) Katsina Alu, JSC had this to say: “IF THE COURT PROVIDES FOR THE DOING OF AN ACT WITH CONDITIONS, IT IS AN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLE OF PRACTICE THAT THE COURTS HAVE A DUTY TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER TO ENSURE THAT THE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. IT IS A FALLACY TO ARGUE THAT THE CONDITIONS DO NOT MATTER AND CAN BE IGNORED, IT IS ONLY WHEN THESE CONDITIONS ARE RELIGIOUSLY FULFILLED WILL A GOVERNOR BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE.” His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi submitted before the Supreme Court of Justice that the appointment, confirmation and swearing-in of the 6th Respondent (Alh. Garba Umar) when His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi was never removed from office cannot be said to be proper. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSSION 1. The judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the decision of the trial Court which held that there was compliance with the mandatory and strict provisions of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution as regards the impeachment (removal) of the Appellant (His Excellency Alh. Sani Abubabakar Danladi) as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State is wrongful and must be set aside, because, inter alia: 2. The House of Assembly was not constitutionally and lawfully constituted at the time it commenced and concluded the impeachment proceedings of His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi as the CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED minimum number to constitute a House of Assembly (24) for the impeachment proceedings was not met, thereby nullifying all the impeachment proceedings and the impeachment of His Excellency Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi; 3. The absence of filling the vacancy to make the House of Assembly comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 91 of the 1999 Constitution which provides that the House of Assembly must have the minimum number of 24 members to constitute a House of Assembly has robbed the House of Assembly, the Acting Chief Judge of Taraba State and the Investigatory Panel of their jurisdiction and power to have removed His Excellency Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi as well as the appointment, swearing-in of the 6th Respondent (Alh. Garba Umar) and the investigative report of the Panel respectively; 4. There was no service of either the Notice of Allegations of Gross Misconduct and His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi’s Reply thereto on ALL the constitutionally required minimum members of the House of Assembly; 5. The House of Assembly did not move a motion calling for the investigation of the allegations of gross misconduct within fourteen (14) days of the date the Notice was presented to the Speaker of the House of Assembly; 6. The failure of the House of Assembly to issue or prescribe the procedure to guide and regulate the powers and functions of the Panel contrary to Section 188(7) of the Constitution robs the Panel of the jurisdiction to proceed as it did accordingly nullifies the entire proceedings of the Panel and the subsequent report issued thereby; 7. The allegation of Gross Misconduct has not been established against His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi; 8. The Court below was wrong to have raised an issue suomotu and found His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi guilty of the allegations as contained in the Notice of Allegations and there is no appeal on the trial Court’s finding by the Respondents; 9. The decision of the Court below is erroneous in law and same has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice against His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi. His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi humbly urged the Honourable Supreme Court of Justice to resolve these issues in his favour and; a. Allow the Appeal b. Set aside the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Yola Judicial Division in its entirety, delivered on 19th July, 2013, which affirmed the Judgment of the trial Court. c. Set aside the Judgment of the trial Court dismissing His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi’s Originating Summons. d. Nullify the impeachment proceedings and the impeachment (removal) of His Excellency, Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State; e. AN ORDER re-instating His Excellency Alh. Sani Abubakar Danladi as the Deputy Governor of Taraba State.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:40:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015