By Joseph Edegbo
A Kaduna high court, has adjourned hearing till 13th December 2023, the suit filed by 8 members of the Kagarko Legislative Council against the Ministry For Local Government Affairs, the State House of Assembly, the Attorney General of Kaduna State, and the Impeached Chairman of Kagarko LGA, Nasara Auza Rabo.
Counsel to the plaintiff, John A. Atama, Esq. told the media that the adjournment Thursday, followed an oral application by a new Counsel who came in to represent One of the respondents asking for more time to enable him to study the prayers of the plaintiffs and respond accordingly.
Barrister Atama said since it is the right of the Counsel to make such an application, he did not oppose, hence the trial Judge, Justice, John A. Ambi, granted the application and adjourned the case.
The Legislative Council of the Kagarko Local Government Area of Kaduna State had instituted the suit at the State High Court against the respondents claiming, meddling in its functions.
In the suit, the plaintiffs, eight (8) of the Ten (10) legislative council, claim that the recall of Auza Rabo by the State House of Assembly from the suspension does not affect the legislative exercise of impeachment conducted by them, adding that the exercise of the House of Assembly was distinct from that of the legislative council.
The plaintiffs also want the court to declare among others: that the Ministry of Local Government is an appendage of the Executive arm of Kaduna State government and does not have the vires to alter the decision of the plaintiffs being elected legislators or determine the legality or otherwise of the impeachment of Rabo, except by the pronouncement of a court of competent jurisdiction in line with the principle of separation of powers obtainable in the Nigerian constitution.
“A declaration that the impeachment of Auza Rabo by the plaintiffs pressured by the constituents of the respective eight political wards out of the ten was an exercise legally allowed by the extant laws governing the operations of the plaintiffs and as such, remains valid and subsisting.
“That the invitation of the plaintiffs by the Commissioner for LGs to attend a meeting over the recall of Rabo, the flashing of a suspension letter in a conference hall, the threat of suspension of the duly elected plaintiffs by the Commissioner over the legislative exercise of impeachment of Rabo referring to the plaintiffs as illiterate villagers and walking out the duly elected Speaker of the plaintiffs and denying any of the plaintiffs from uttering a word or directing the plaintiffs to reverse the impeachment, was an abuse of power, illegal, crude, unwarranted, uncivilized, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
“That the impeachment exercise conducted by the plaintiffs, being a constitutional and legal function of the plaintiffs, superseded the suspension and subsequent recall of Rabo by the Kaduna House of Assembly which suspension and recall is not within the bonds of the Commissioner and the House of Assembly.”
