TWO legal practitioners and activists have countered Edo State House of Assembly insisting that filing an appeal against a judgment does not serve as a stay of execution of the judgment of the court below and must therefore be obeyed in the interim.
Justice Osai Ahiakwo and Barrister Andrew Emwanta bared their mind regarding Wednesday’s judgment of a Federal High Court presided over by Justice James Omotoso which reinstated impeached deputy governor of Edo State, Comrade Philip Shiabu.
In a statement he issued in Calabar, Ahiakwo maintained that: “Flagrant disobedience to and refusal to recognize Deputy Governor Philip Shaibu by the Edo State governor as ordered by a Federal High Court’s amounts to violating the principle of rule of law.
“There is no law in Nigeria that empowers the Edo State government to act in such a degrading manner just because there is a Notice of Appeal filed at the Court of Appeal challenging the judgment of the Federal High Court.
“There is nothing to suggest that a Notice of Appeal amounts to a stay of execution. Anything to the contrary is an affront to the judiciary.
“Until and unless the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment of the Federal High Court, Comrade Philip Shaibu remains the authentic and recognized deputy governor of Edo State by virtue of the Federal High Court judgment.”
Ahiakwo advised that Nigerians must rise in defence of the Nigerian Constitution and condemn such wanton disregard for judicial orders or disobedience of court decisions by the executive or the legislative arms of government.
The lawyer reiterated that the Federal High Court’s judgment reinstating Mr Shaibu was consistent with upholding the 1999 Constitution and the rule of law.
According to him, the court order is a demonstration of the judiciary’s role in preventing illegality and a clear message that a thorough investigation into serious infractions of the Constitution must be considered in impeachment proceedings.
He maintained that the judiciary is crucial in maintaining the balance of power and promoting good governance.
He went on to argue that the impeachment process of Shuaibu ab initio ought to have garnered substantive evidence, and not mere allegations or frivolities.
On his part, Barrister Emwanta, who is also counsel to Comrade Shiabu, opined that aside from the fact that the Notice of Appeal dies nor serve as Stay of Execution, he insisted that the certified true copy of the said judgment was not ready as at 4 pm on Friday and as such a Stay of Execution couldn’t have been issued in a vacuum.
He emphasized that the Edo State House of Assembly lacks the authority to independently stay the execution of a judgment. He also clarified the confusion surrounding the Edo State government’s appeal. He stated that Justice Omotosho ruled on the case without an appeal.
Speaking during an interview with AIT, Barrister Emwanta maintained that ”It’s quite unfortunate when you hear people in government tell lies. As I speak to you, we have not gotten the CTC of that judgment yet. As at 4 pm, their lawyer applied for the CTC just as we did.
“For you to apply for an order of Stay of Execution, the only exhibit you need is a CTC of what you are staying. I asked the registry if anybody applied for a Stay of Execution and they said No.
“So who are they deceiving? Can a House of Assembly on its own stay the execution of a judgment? We operate a constitutional democracy and there is a clear separation of power.”
Speaking about the appeal being made by the Edo State government against the judgment, he said, ”There are actually two cases, I filed suit 405 and 405 is an appeal and that is what they are referring to. The judgment given to reinstate Honourable Philip Shaibu is not in 405.
“Before the Impeachment, there was a case that we filed and they were using the appeal to delay it. But as God will have it, the other case that didn’t have an appeal was what Justice Omotosho ruled on.”
Eighteen-Eleven Media