Exploring the Legal Justifications for Ondo Deputy Governor's Decision to Stay Silent during Impeachment

Legal justifications for the Ondo Deputy Governor's decision to stay silent during impeachment proceedings

The first legal justification for the Ondo Deputy Governor's decision to stay silent during impeachment proceedings is the right to remain silent[1]. This right is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and is also recognized in many other legal systems around the world. The right to remain silent allows individuals to avoid self-incrimination and protects them from being forced to testify against themselves. In the case of the Ondo Deputy Governor, remaining silent during impeachment proceedings can be seen as a strategic decision to avoid making potentially incriminating statements that could be used against him.The counsel to the Ondo state deputy governor, Hon Lucky Aiyedatiwa, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, has explained why his client didn’t respond to the notice of impeachment from the state House of Assembly.

Adegboruwa, in a letter to the state Chief Judge, Olusegun Odusola, asked him to ignore the directive to set up a probe panel by the State House of Assembly adding that it would amount to contempt of court.

According to him “Aiyedatiwa did not respond to the notice sent to his office by the House of Assembly because of the restraining order already issued on the matter by the Federal High Court.

“Under and by virtue of section 287(3) of the Constitution, “all persons and authorities in Nigeria” are to obey and give effect to the orders of the Federal High Court.

“Our Client swore on oath to defend the Constitution and he cannot act against the said Constitution to disobey the valid and subsisting order of the Federal High Court of Nigeria which has halted the removal proceedings.

He said that his” Client has not been personally served with any valid Notice of acts of gross misconduct as required by law.

” Our Client is not in receipt of any valid Notice of acts of gross misconduct properly so issued and bearing the authority of the House of Assembly of Ondo State to which he can respond.

Adegboruwa added that “Our Client has filed and served two separate applications upon the Ondo State House of Assembly, seeking orders of interlocutory injunction against the removal proceedings and also to stay further proceedings in respect of the invalid Notice, which was illegally issued and improperly served.”

He said that

“since the House of Assembly has already joined matters in the court over the issue by filing an appeal against the restraining order, it will be against the law to continue with the impeachment process without awaiting the outcome of the case.

“The House of Assembly having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court by filing processes in Suit No. AK/348/2023 pending before the High Court in Akure and also purporting to file a complaint before the National Judicial Council in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1249/2023 before the Federal High Court Abuja, is fully aware of and cognizant of the authority of the Court over the subject matter of the removal proceedings against our Client.

“Consequently, it is our considered view that the matter of the planned removal of the Deputy Governor of Ondo State is now subjudice.

“Parties should follow the due process of law, the House of Assembly itself being a creation of law, seeking to implement the provisions of law, rightly or wrongly.

” It cannot and should not be allowed to take the law into its own hands by openly disregarding a subsisting order of court and other court processes duly served upon it.”

” It would be a contempt of court to proceed with the impeachment process when the parties are involved in two cases in the Federal High Court in Abuja and State High Court in Akure.

Disclaimer

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Onemictv africa or any employee thereof.without sufficient evidence.