Following the adoption of the report of the seven-man investigative panel set up by the state Chief Judge to probe allegations of misconduct against Phillip Shaibu, the embattled deputy governor was impeached by the State House of Assembly on Monday.
The panel, constituted to probe the deputy governor on allegations of perjury and leaking of government secrets, and headed by Justice S.A. Omonua (retd.) ended its sitting on Friday after Shaibu failed to appear before it.
The state governor, Godwin Obaseki, and Shaibu were having issues since the governor failed to declare his support for the deputy governor’s governorship ambition. This allegedly led to the plot to impeach the deputy governor last week.
The PUNCH reports that the panel had adjourned till Thursday for Shaibu to open his defence, and when he didn’t show up, he was given till Friday to come and defend the allegation against him, which he failed to do.
The state assembly, which is the petitioner in the case, had opened and closed its case, paving the way for Shaibu to defend the allegations leveled against him.
Shaibu’s counsel, Oladoyin Awoyale, attended the Wednesday (the opening day) sitting but excused himself in the middle of the hearing after the panel refused his prayer to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of a suit filed in Abuja by Shaibu challenging the impeachment move against him.
Omonuwa upheld the opposition to the suspension prayer by the Assembly, represented by its Deputy Clerk, Joe Ohiafi.
After Awoyale excused himself, Ohiafi went on to state the Assembly’s case against Shaibu.
Recall that when the case came up on March 28, Justice I. E. Ekwo ordered the respondents – Inspector General of Police, State Security Service, the chairman of the impeachment panel, Justice S. A. Omonua (retd), and three members of the panel of seven appointed the by fourth defendant, Edo State Chief Judge and the House of Assembly, to be at the court on April 8 to show cause why the injunction to maintain status, pending the hearing and determination of the Originating Motion on Notice should not be granted.

Post a Comment