By Chidi Nkwopara

OWERRI—Fierce legal fireworks over the recent impeachment of Imo State Deputy Governor, Prince Eze Madumere, commenced yesterday, in the State High Court, presided over by Justice Benjamin C. Iheka.

Madumere

A glimpse of what was in the offing reared its head when Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, announced his presence for the Speaker, Imo State House of Assembly and Imo State House of Assembly, while the state Attorney General, AG, Mr. Milletus Nlemadim, SAN, remained for the Chief Judge.

Making his marathon presentation, Madumere’s counsel, Prince Ken Njemanze, SAN, told the court that the provisions of Section 188(5) of the Nigerian Constitution, as amended, remains central to the suit.

“This provision is very clear and unambiguous. It does not need any external aid for it’s interpretation. The provision is very mandatory for the Chief Judge, CJ, to appoint a seven-man panel to investigate the alleged sins of Prince Madumere, within seven days of the Speaker’s request. This was not complied with.

“When the Constitution says that the CJ must act within the specified time, he must comply, otherwise his act thereafter will be null, void and of no effect. The prescribed time cannot be enlarged or extended without doing extensive harm to the Constitution and the aggrieved party.

“From the facts before this honourable Court, the CJ appointed the seven-man panel on July 20, 2018, and the Defendants clearly confirmed this date in their counter affidavits. The appointment was made nine days after the motion by the House of Assembly and the request of the Assembly Speaker.

“We urge this honourable court to hold that having done so outside the stipulated time, the appointment of the seven-man panel by the CJ is null, void and of no effect.

“The alleged submission of the panel report is very doubtful and indeed, false. Who prepared the document? Who signed it? The court can’t be left to speculate on these issues. This purported report made by the panelists, is in the custody of the second to 10 defendants.

“They did not find it worthy to exhibit the document in court. The presumption on our side is that no such document exists and the court should so hold.”

Before adjourning the matter sine die, Justice Iheka said that all parties would be properly informed when ruling would be given.