An Osogbo High Court on Tuesday stopped the
efforts of three members of the People’s Democratic Party in the State
House of Assembly to stop the ongoing screening exercise of local
government council caretaker committees.
The court denied an application for an interim
injunction to halt the Assembly from further screening members of the
caretaker committees. Governor Rauf Aregbesola had last week,
constituted a caretaker committee for each of the councils in the state
including Ife-East Area Office with its headquarters in Modakeke, while
the Assembly commenced the screening of the committee members on Monday.
Adegbola Mukaila, Olajide Adeyeye and Richard
Ogunleye, had argued in a 23-paragraph affidavit that the committees
were illegal and against a Supreme Court judgment of December 2010
which declared the local government councils election conducted in the
state in 2007 as illegal, null, void and unconstitutional and
subsequently ordered a fresh elections into the council areas. The suit
claims that the constitution of any caretaker committee for the 30
councils and the area office in the state would be inimical to the
interests of the people that the applicants are representing, adding
that democratically-elected representatives were needed in the council
areas.
The suit, which joined Mr. Aregbesola, the speaker
of the House, Adejare Bello and the House of Assembly as co-defendants,
maintained that it would be unconstitutional for the governor to
appoint people into any local government council to run its affairs
except by the democratically-elected government.
When the motion came before the judge, Jide
Falola, for determination on Tuesday, a mild drama ensued as the
applicant’s counsel, Kehinde Adesiyan and Wale Afolabi, who represented
the governor, argued the veracity of Mr. Afolabi’s representation for
Mr. Aregbesola.
Mr. Adesiyan argued that it was wrong for Mr.
Afolabi, a private legal practitioner, to represent the executive
governor of the state without providing a fiat from the
attorney-general of the state.
He contended that Afolabi could not be heard in
the motion since he was not legally representing the third respondent,
Mr. Aregbesola.
However, Mr. Afolabi while replying on point of
law said only Mr. Aregbesola could contest his representation in the
court, adding that the applicants’ counsel did not raise an objection
to his application.
“Justifiable controversy”
However, Mr. Falola refused to adjourn the case,
saying that Mr. Afolabi had failed to file an affidavit to oppose the
motion exparte as required by law. Mr. Falola asked the applicants’
counsel why the lawmakers could not argue or discuss the matter on the
floor of the House since the parties (except Mr. Aregbesola) in the
case are from the same setting. Replying, Mr. Adesiyan said the matter
was “a justifiable controversy, which needed the intervention of the
court.” He added that members of the House of the Assembly were from
diverse political parties and protecting diverse interests. Ruling on
the motion, Mr. Falola held that the case was purely constitutional and
that all the parties in the case must be heard since they are from the
same democratic society.
However, Mr. Falola said he needed to exercise some restraint in
granting interim order, maintaining that it was irresistible for him to
hear all the parties’ side in the case. Subsequently, Mr. Falola ruled
that the status quo must be maintained till February 9 when the court
would hear the motion on notice.
