The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, restrained Governor Rotimi Akeredolu of Ondo State from investigating the state’s Chief Judge (CJ), Justice Oluwatoyin Akeredolu, over a viral video made by a citizen of the state, Olupelumi Fagboyegun.

Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the order while delivering a judgment in the suit brought by Justice Akeredolu against the Governor and five others.

Justice Ekwo described the move to probe the embattled judge as “unconstitutional and illegal.”

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Fagboyegun, who claimed to be a stepbrother to the state’s chief judge, in the viral video, had alleged that Akeredolu instigated his detention for three years for going to their father’s house.

The state government, through the former Attorney General, had ordered for Justice Akeredolu’s investigation.

In an ex-parte application filed by her lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, Justice Akeredolu alleged, among others that the decision by the state government, through the former Attorney General (AG), Charles Titiloye, to refer the allegations made against her and the state’s judiciary by Fagboyegun in the viral video to the House of Assembly for investigation, was an illegal act designed to remove her from office.

She prayed the court to determine whether the 3rd and 5th defendants have the constitutional power to investigate her.

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the National Judicial Council (NJC), Gov. Rotimi Akeredolu, the Ondo State Attorney General (AG), the state’s House of Assembly and the Inspector General of Police were 1st to 6th defendants respectively in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2016/2021.

Okutepa, while moving the application, had noted that the Ondo AG, after claiming to have investigated Fagboyegun’s allegation, without hearing from the CJ, made public a report where he said he found that Fagboyegun was granted bail on March 18, 2018 when he was arraigned before the Magistrate Court and was never detained as he claimed.

The lawyer wondered why Titiloye later referred the case to the Ondo State House of Assembly for further investigation even when he claimed Fagboyegun lied in his video.

“We fear that if there is no intervention of the court, we think it is a ploy to get her out of office. We believe it has political undertone,” the lawyer had argued.
NAN also reports that since the case began, the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants had not been represented in court.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Ekwo noted that the defendants were alleged to have plotted to remove the state chief judge.

He said the judgment would have been delivered before now but for the strike embarked upon by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN).

The judge, who faulted the submission of the AGF (1st) and the NJC (2nd) that the avirement of the plaintiff in Paragraph 7 of her application was speculative and should be struck out, held that “having studied the avirement in Paragarph 7 of the application, I found nothing speculative as alleged by the 1st and 2nd defendants.”

He said in the applications filed by the AGF and the NJC, he found nothing challenging the avirement of the plaintiff.

“The evidence in this case has not been effectively challenged by the 1st and 2nd defendants in this case,” he held.

Ekwo also noted that the 3rd to 6th defendants failed to file a defence.

According to him, the consequence is settled.

“it shows that there is no challenge. They have admitted the evidence of the plaintiff I so hold,” he said.

The judge, however, acknowledged that besides the above observation, the case of the plaintiff must succeed on its merit.

He held that based on the law, it was the NJC that had the authority to recommend to the governor that a judicial officer be investigated or removed on the grounds of incompetent, misconduct, among others.

The judge, who questioned the action of the Ondo State AG to order for a probe of the judge, said: “I do not see where he derives his power.”

He condemned the use of social media by the AG in the whole scenario, saying “the purported investigation is solely an issue of the law which must be removed from social media.”

He described any officer of the law who failed to adhere to the code of the law as “a terror.”

“In conclusion, the case of the plaintiff has not be challenged by 1st and 2nd defendants, and has not at all been challenged by and the 3rd to 6th defendants,” he said.
Justice Ekwo also described the argument of the NJC that the application of the plaintiff was a misnomer as baseless

The judge, therefore, declared that by the provisions of Section 153 and Item 21(d).of the 3rd Schedule (Part 1) thereof to the 1999 Constitution (as amended) together with Sections 271 and 292 of the same Constitution, the 3rd and 5th defendants had no legal right to investigate Justice Akeredolu (the plaintiff) over an allegations of judicial misconduct said to have been made in the viral video.

He declared that it as unconstitutional for the 3rd and 5th defendants to investigate or to have investigated allegations of judicial misconduct against the judge.

Ekwo also said that by virtue of the law, it was unconstitutional for the 3rd and 4th defendants to have referred the plaintiff to the 5th defendant (House of Assembly) for investigation into the alleged judicial misconduct.

According to him, the 3rd and 4th defendants cannot give a directive to 5th defendant to conduct an investigation into the act said to have been committed in the viral video.

The judge held that even if the 3rd to 5th defendants had the power to investigate, the investigation done without affording the plaintiff to be heard was unconstitutional, null and void.

Justice Ekwo, therefore, made an order setting aside any decision of the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants against Justice Akeredolu, especially the purported investigation report by the 3rd and 4th defendants released on social media on Feb. 18.

“An order of perpetual injunction is hereby made restraining the defendants herein by themselves, through their officers, privies or any other person deriving power, command, authority from acting or relying on or continuing to rely on anything to the prejudice of the plaintiff based on any decisions that would be made by the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants in so far as the decision is related to the office of the plaintiff as Chief Judge of the Ondo State High Court.”