Is Agboola Ajayi, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain and deputy governor of Ondo State, likely to escape the impeachment hammer?
The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is aggrieved that Governor Rotimi Akeredolu’s deputy has not resigned, following his defection to the opposition platform
The situation looks dicey. Those playing the game are masters of political tricks. But, the basis and indeed, the baseline for removal or otherwise, is the constitution.
There was respite for the embattled deputy governor last week as Chief Judge Olanrewaju Akeredolu, asked the parties in the impeachment drama to play by the rules.
Her admonition was in the interest of democracy. The impeachment of a deputy governor is a very serious matter as it practically translates to the removal or sacking of the number two citizen of a state, jointly elected along with the governor.
Also, it amounts to the reversal of the collective decision of the majority of voters who elected the holder of the office for a fixed term or tenure during the governorship election.
But, since the exercise is undertaken by the House of Assembly, impeachment is the legal and legitimate liquidation of a right and privilege conferred on the official by the people on whose behalf the decision is deemed to have been taken by the democratic parliament.
It is a tedious process, if it is followed. The conditions are stringent as outlined by Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. If the strict procedure is manipulated, subverted or violated, the battle can shift to the court, the final arbiter.
There is a precedent in Ondo State. The former deputy governor, Ali Olanusi, was impeached in error during the administration of Dr. Olusegun Mimiko. Oluboyo was sworn in as replacement. The bone of contention was that Mimiko defected to the PDP. Olanusi preferred to stay on in the Labour Party(LP). The court ruled that the impeachment was illegal. But, the judgment came after his tenure had expired.
In fact, no impeachment can also be accomplished without the involvement of the judiciary. That may have informed the lawful admonition by Justice Akeredolu, that the constitution should be followed to the letter.
The drama started last Thursday when Speaker of the House of Assembly Bamidele Oleyelogun wrote to the Chief Judge to constitute an investigative panel to look into the allegations of gross misconduct leveled against Ajayi.
Fourteen of 26 members of the House signed the impeachment notice to be served on the deputy governor by the Clerk, Bode Adeyelu. Contrary to the twisting of facts, the House was on course. Only one third was required at that stage.
But, an important process was jumped by the 14 lawmakers, due to negligence or lack of proper consultation with their lawyer. The particulars of the offences committed by Ajayi were not listed. Also, the notice was not served on the deputy governor although there were claims that he evaded service. However, it is noteworthy that the Group 14 hurriedly suspended two lawmakers, amid political calculations.
The omission was the tonic to the nine pro-Ajayi lawmakers to decry the faulty procedure. They dissociated themselves from the proceedings, saying it did not follow the due process. They called on the chief judge to uphold Section 188(3, 4,5-11) of the constitution. But, they were also off the track as they stated that two-thirds was required to sign the notice. “It is equally worthy of note that the total membership of Ondo State House of Assembly is 26, in which 2/3 is 18 and this remains the constitutionally required number, irrespective of any arbitrary suspension,” said the Group Nine.
The Chief Judge would appear to have acceded to the lawful pleas by the nine dissenting lawmakers, not on the basis of their “2/3” argument, but because the notice was not served on parties to the dispute and the impeachable offences not properly stated.
According to the law, a deputy governor cannot be removed by allegations on the pages of newspapers. He must be found guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified.
Also, the Speaker shall within seven days of the receipt of the notice cause a copy of the notice to be served on the deputy governor and on each member of the House and shall cause any statement made in reply to the allegation by the deputy governor to be served on each member of the House.
The implication, according to Justice Akeredolu, is that Ajayi must be served with the impeachment notice.
The notice to be served on him must state that he is guilty of gross misconduct on the performance of the functions of his office and must specify the particulars of the gross misconduct. He must be allowed to respond to the allegations. Therefore, the Chief Judge was on course when she observed that the process has not been completed. But, it is up to lawyers to argue and jurists to determine whether the letter to her by Kayode Olagoke(SAN) has made the process subjudice.
Within 14 days of the receipt of the notice by the deputy governor, whether or not the deputy governor responds, the House of Assembly shall pass a resolution that the allegations be investigated.
Put succinctly, the impeachment of a deputy governor involves eight steps.
The first step is that notice of any allegation in writing on the allegations of gross misconduct on the part of the deputy governor is prepared. The notice, signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly, is presented to the Speaker.
But, what is gross misconduct? According to the constitution, gross misconduct refers to “a grave violation or breach of the provision of the constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the parliament to gross misconduct.
The determination of gross misconduct rests squarely on the House of Assembly. It is a wide departure from the setting up of a medical panel to assess the medical fitness of a office holder. Despite this, when the concept of gross misconduct became a subject of litigation in Oyo State, former Governor Rashidi Ladoja survived and his impeachment was squashed 11 months after.
The second step is that the Speaker must within seven days serve the deputy governor and each member of the House with a copy of the notice of allegation. The section of the law appears silent on the avoidance of service.
The third step is that the deputy governor has a right of reply. He may choose not to exercise the right. His reply to the allegations must be served on each lawmaker.
The fourth step relates to time framework. Within 14 days of the presentation of the notice to the Speaker, the House shall resolve by motion without any debate whether or not the allegations shall be investigated. This motion needs to be passed by at least two-thirds majority of all members of the House.
The fifth step is the critical stage. If the motion is not supported by required majority, the process fails. It is bound to stop and no further action will be taken. However, if the required majority is obtained and the motion is passed, then, the Speaker will within seven days of the passing of the motion request the Chief Judge to appoint a panel of seven persons, who in her opinion are of unquestionable integrity to investigate the allegations. The members of the Panel cannot be members of any public service, legislature or political party.
The sixth step is that the panel set up by the chief judge will report its findings within three months of being appointed. The findings will be reported to the House. During the proceedings of the panel, the deputy governor shall have a right to defend himself, and shall also have the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
The seventh step relates to proof of allegations. If the panel reports that the allegations cannot be proved, the process is terminated. But, if proven, the House will consider the report, and a resolution for the adoption of the report shall be moved.
The eighth step is also challenging. The adoption of the resolution must be supported by no fewer than two-thirds majority of the members of the House
Once it is adopted, the deputy governor stands removed. He is bound to vacate the office.
Impeachment, like the law, is sacrosanct. It cannot be challenged in court. But, the deputy governor still has a window of opportunity. If the processes leading to his impeachment are flawed, these processes can be challenged in court.