KEY POINTS
- Court orders parties to maintain status quo on chairmen’s suspension.
- Plaintiffs argue suspension violates constitutional and Supreme Court rulings.
- Hearing for substantive suit adjourned to January 20, 2025.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Edo State government and its House of Assembly to maintain the status quo regarding the suspension of 18 local government chairmen.
Justice Emeka Nwite issued the directive on Monday, pending the hearing and determination of a substantive suit filed by the aggrieved chairmen.
The order followed a motion ex-parte moved by the chairmen’s counsel, Anderson Asemota, who argued that their suspension violated constitutional provisions.
The chairmen claimed their removal stemmed from disagreements with the governor over joint account operations, which the Supreme Court had previously ruled against.
Chairmen challenge suspension as unconstitutional
Asemota informed the court that the chairmen were suspended by the Edo State House of Assembly on December 17, 2024, and sought relief to protect their constitutional rights.
Moreover, he cited a Supreme Court judgment declaring that governors lack the power to suspend elected local government officials.
The plaintiffs requested an injunction to restrain the Edo State government, its House of Assembly, and other defendants from enforcing the suspension resolution.
According to Tribune Online, they argued that their suspension was politically motivated and that only the courts have the authority to adjudicate such matters.
Additionally, Justice Nwite agreed that caution was necessary and ruled for all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum as of December 15, 2024.
Hearing adjourned as case progresses
The substantive suit, filed under case number FHC/ABJ/CS/1952/V/2024, was adjourned until January 20, 2025, for a full hearing.
The defendants in the case include the Edo State Governor, the Speaker and members of the Edo State House of Assembly, the Attorney-General of Edo State, and the Inspector-General of Police.
The plaintiffs also asked for an interim order to restrain the respondents from making further implementation of the suspension resolution and anything that could hinder their term in office until the legal matter is resolved.
