From Iyabo Lawal, Ibadan

But it was also a day on which a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) as well as supporters of Ladoja literally saw red, no thanks to an army of hoodlums who unleashed terror on them.

Fire-works reigned both inside the Court of Appeal, Ibadan, where hot legal exchanges were traded; and outside the premises, where muscle men had a field day.

Olanipekun led three other senior advocates on behalf of the former Speaker of the state House of Assembly, Adeolu Adeleke; and his deputy, Titilola Dauda, as original plaintiffs in the matter.

Ladoja later applied and was admitted as a joiner in the suit.

With Olanipekun for the former Speaker and deputy were Messrs Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), Niyi Akintola (SAN) and Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN).

After the submissions of both the appellants and the respondents, the court adjourned for judgment in the matter on a date to be fixed.

As soon as Olanipekun and some of his colleagues stepped out of the court premises, the hoodlums, believed to have been hired by a frontline politician in the state, descended on the lawyers. The thugs had earlier reigned supreme outside the court while the proceedings were holding.

The police reportedly looked on with disinterest while the assault lasted.

It took the intervention of the state attorney-general, Mr. Michael Lana, before the Senior Advocate was rescued.

Despite the heavy presence of policemen within the court premises and its environs, some supporters of the impeached governor also got a share of the assault as they were rough-handled and harassed by the hoodlums.

It took the intervention of the court management and the police team after being upbraided by the Attorney-General before the hoodlums dispersed.

While arguing his appeal before a full court presided over by Justice G. O. Ogebe, Olanipekun pointed out that the question before the court was whether section 188 (10) of the 1999 Constitution could be read and acted upon in isolation without the preceding sub-sections 1-9.

According to the Senior Advocate, section 188 (1-9) of the constitution are a condition precedent to the operations of section 188 (10).

The former NBA president submitted that the whole section must be taken into consideration by the court before taking a decision.

He said that only a subsection may constitute an abstract understanding of the whole section if read alone.

Said he: "The governor of a state can be removed from office in accordance with the provisions of section 188 (10) of the 1999 Constitution in strict compliance with the preceding subsections.

Olanipekun urged the court to hold that the purported notice of impeachment served on Ladoja as well as the entire proceedings culminating in the controversial impeachment was null and void and against the constitution. He also argued that the group of 18 lawmakers who championed the impeachment never met in the House chambers among other fundamental breaches of due process.

He maintained that in the course of interpreting the constitution, it must not be subjected to indignity.

Citing section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, Olanipekun said that the plaintiffs never participated in the proceedings before the lower court and urged the appellate court to exercise its power, which the lower court ought to have done.

"That there are 32 members in the state House of Assembly and the arithmetic dictates that 22 forms the two-thirds as required by the constitution to impeach the governor and not 18. Considering this, the court will exercise such power as contained in section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act and give judgment in this matter. The issue on hand is a question of the interpretation of the constitution, a question of whether some lawmakers are under suspension or whether 18 forms the required two third," Olanipekun said.

In his own arguments, Ladoja who was represented by his counsel, Malam Yusuf Alli (SAN), also said the issue for determination by the appellate court bordered on whether the court of law could interpret the outer clause of section 188 (10) of the constitution without considering the preceding clauses.

He submitted that the court had a responsibility to first look at the preceding clauses of section 188 arguing that to interpret the section in isolation would amount to turning the law into a robot.

"The emphasis is whether there is a compliance, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the constitution has been breached on the matter of impeachment, the notice was not served on the sitting speaker or all members and even the accused person who was expected to be served personally as spelt out by the constitution. This is a case where all rules were breached at every stage."

On the argument that the impeachment process was purely a legislative exercise and not within the jurisdiction of the court, Alli argued that in a case where the two other arms of government had breached any of the outer clauses of the law; the court had a constitutional duty to intervene.

According to him, once there is an infraction on the constitution by the legislature, the court has a right to come in.

"The question is: Can anybody do anything without the composition of the two-thirds members of the House? Even if there is a suspension, the affected person is still a member until he has validly vacated the seat. Citing the case of Emiri vs Imipweh 1994 SCNJ 1 at 21, Alli urged the hold to allow the appeal and hold that the entire process was in violation of the constitution.

But the 18 lawmakers who championed the impeachment insisted that the only issue for determination before the court was whether the plaintiffs had the locus standi to institute the action. He added that it was also an issue of jurisdiction.

The lawmakers, who were represented by their counsel, Chief Christopher Ayanlaja (SAN) said that the lower court only considered the provisions of section 188 (10) and came to the conclusion that the court had no jurisdiction in respect of impeachment of a governor, which was purely a matter of law.

Ayanlaja, who led Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), recalled that the higher court in Abaribe vs Abia State upheld the decision of the lower court by dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction. He therefore urged that the Court of Appeal could not, in the Abaribe vs Abia State case, upturn itself.

"The cases of Balarabe Musa and Abaribe, the former Deputy Governor of Abia State were decided by this court and it is bound by those decisions until set aside by the Supreme court."

Although he noted that section 188 (10) recognised the existence of the preceding processes from subsections 1-9, Ayanlaja contended that section 188 (10) could stand without compliance with the previous clauses.

"Section 188 (10) is put in to stop any interference by the court. This is a matter for the determination of a parliamentary court and not this court. It is my submission that the court's duty is to interpret the constitution as you find it," he said.

The Senior Advocate recalled that the issue at the lower court was an application on jurisdiction of the court.

According to him, what the appellate court could do in the event that the appeal succeeds was to send the case back to be determined on its merits.

Although the five judges namely Ogebe, K.B. Akaahs, C. Chukwuma-Eneh, C. B. Ogunbiyi and J. Mikailu newly came into the matter, they assured the parties that justice would be done.

While adjourning the matter for judgment, they said the date would be communicated to the parties. At the last adjourned date, the case was presided over by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Umaru Abdulahi who led justices Afolabi Fabiyi, Aminat Augie, M. L Garba and Ifunnaya Udom Azogwu.

Yesterday's session was held amidst tight security as law enforcement agents numbering over 200 were deployed to the premises. Frontline politician, who engineered Ladoja's removal, Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, was accompanied by top members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as well as party supporters, friends and associates while the chairman of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW), Alhaji Akinsola Tokyo also mobilised his men to the court.

Adedibu's men defied the no noise warning in the court premises by singing his praises. As the dancing and singing continued, some hoodlums descended on Olanipekun and his men who were heading for their cars.

It took the intervention of the state attorney-general for the former NBA scribe to be freed.

Olanipekun expressed regrets over the assault while his colleague, Fagbemi berated the police for their inaction saying the hoodlums ought to be arrested. Fagbemi however dissociated his clients from the attack on lawyers, saying, they were manhandled by hoodlums.

The police team was led by Superintendent of Police Femi Enaifoghe.

The Deputy Chief Registrar of the court, Mrs. Funmilayo Adeosun deplored the activities of the hoodlums and the breakdown of law and order in the court premises, saying that the leader of the police team failed in his duty to prevent the miscreants from gaining entry into the premises.

A visibly angry Adeosun said the instruction to the police was that only counsel and journalists should be allowed into the courtroom.

She directed Enaifoghe to immediately disperse the hoodlums and restore sanity to the court premises.

Supporters of Ladoja also shared in the brutalisation as they were manhandled by the men who threatened that the police presence would not deter them from carrying out their plan.

When it became apparent that they had been indicted, the policemen became angry and threatened to deal with the supporters of Ladoja.

A mobile policeman threatened to disperse the crowd with tear gas. He also threatened to break video cameras being used by reporters at the scene if they continue to record the event.

The policemen who came in two lorries and an armoured personnel carrier conspicuously stationed at the entrance of the courtroom later sent the men away from the premises.

The new Speaker of the House, Hon. Moruf Atilola and another member were among those who witnessed the proceedings.

Adeleke and his deputy had in the wake of the impeachment crisis proceeded to the lower court to halt the setting up of the impeachment panel by 18 of their colleagues. The trial judge, Justice Olagoke Ige declined jurisdiction in the matter saying he could not adjudicate on impeachment procedures.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower court, the plaintiffs proceeded on appeal and sought the interpretation of some sections of the constitution.