Aiyedatiwa’s impeachment process still on course – Ondo Assembly

The Ondo State House of Assembly has declared that the ongoing impeachment process against the Deputy Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, has not been suspended as earlier reported in the media.

The Chairman, House Committee on Information, Olatunji Oshati, on Friday, told a journalist that the House had halted the impeachment process after the state Chief Judge, Justice Olusegun Odusola, had communicated to it on his inability to constitute a panel to investigate the allegation against the deputy governor, following a court order.

He said, “We have considered the letter (of the CJ) which is everywhere in the public domain and we are halting the impeachment process until the order of the Federal High Court is vacated.

“It is not about being arrogant with power; it is about holding public officers accountable. It also shows that the process of impeachment transcends the monopoly of the legislature as we can see that the judiciary has stalled it.”

However, the House, through its lawyer, Femi Emodamori, stated again that it had not suspended the process, saying it would pursue it to a logical conclusion.

This was contained in a statement by the legal practitioner on behalf of the Assembly on Saturday.

Part of the statement read, “Impeachment is a constitutional process clearly outlined in section 188 (1)-(11) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and our client has meticulously complied with all the stages leading up to the obligation placed on the state Chief Judge to set up a seven-man panel to investigate the allegations, as stipulated in Section 188(5) of the Constitution.

“The House reaffirmed that it has not ‘suspended’ the impeachment process as inaccurately reported, and will carry same through to a logical conclusion in order to determine the veracity or otherwise of the monumental allegations of gross misconduct against the deputy governor.”

It added, “His lordship however stated that as a Chief Judge, he would prefer that the ex parte order, which his lordship believes ‘tied his hand’, should first be vacated or set aside. The chief judge obviously prefers to err on the side of caution.”